SL. No . Da t e Of f ice Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:11299 CRJR No.05 of 2025 Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Heard Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Chetna latwal, learned counsel for the Revisionist and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This Criminal Jail Revision has been filed through the Superintendent, District Jail, Almora, assailing the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Misc. Application No. 06 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected. 3. Along with the revision, an application seeking condonation of delay (IA No.1/2025) has also been filed. 4. From the record, it is evident that the revisionist was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh vide judgment dated 28.11.2024 in Criminal Case No. 1538 of 2023 for the offence under Section 216 IPC, and was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹5,000/-, with default stipulation. The said judgment was admittedly passed in the presence of the revisionist, and his right to prefer appeal was also made known to him at the time of pronouncement. 5. The appeal preferred thereafter was found to be barred by limitation, involving a delay of 67 days, which delay remained unexplained, leading to rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the learned Sessions Judge on 25.02.2025. 6. Upon perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay and for the reasons stated therein, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, the delay of 67 days in filing the revision is condoned. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the Revisionist has already undergone nearly half of the sentence awarded to him, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Revisionist deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the proceedings. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the revisionist deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the revision. 8. The impugned matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh hearing. The Court below shall proceed to hear and decide the matter on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, and expeditiously, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. Order Accordingly. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 0 3 .1 2 .2 0 2 5 Nitesh/