2025:HHC:26552 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 740 of 2025 Decided on  : 06.08.2025 Rahul Huddone …Petitioner Versus Aruna Sirkek …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner  : Mr. Ankit Kaloti, Advocate. For the respondents  : Nemo. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner­Rahul Huddone has filed the present petition,   under   Section   528   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking   two   days’   time   to   comply   with   the   order   dated 12.07.2024,   passed   by   the   Court   of   learned   Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’). 2. The petitioner was convicted by the Court  of learned   Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Rampur 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:26552 Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court’), for commission of the offence punishable under   Section   138   of   Negotiable   Instruments   Act,  vide judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of   sentence   dated 17.06.2024, passed in  Comp.138 NI Act No.9 of 2016, titled   as  Aruna   Sirkek  versus  Rahul   Huddone,  and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.14,82,000/­ to the complainant. 3. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed, by filing the appeal, before the learned   Appellate   Court,   wherein,   the   application,   filed under Section 389 Cr.PC, has been allowed, by the learned Appellate   Court,   vide   order   dated   12.07.2024,   in   the following terms :­ “Heard. The   application   under   Section   389, Cr.P.C.   has   been   moved   by   the   applicant   for suspension of sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Perusal of the case file shows that the applicant on being convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been sentenced to undergo simple  imprisonment  for a period of  one year and to pay compensation of `14,82,000/­. The appeal has been admitted, as there are arguable points. As the disposal of appeal will take time, the   application   moved   by   the   applicant   is allowed subject to furnishing of personal bond in 3 2025:HHC:26552 the sum of ` 50,000/­ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld. Trial Court and deposit   of   20%   of   the   compensation   amount before the Ld. Trial Court within a period of one month from today. Application stands disposed of. Be tagged with main case file.” 4. Admittedly,   the   said   order   has   not   been complied with, within the stipulated period, as such, the application   for   extension   of   time   was   filed,   which   was allowed   on   9.8.2024   and   the   time   was   extended   till 9.9.2024. Thereafter, again application for extension of time was filed, which was also allowed and the time was extended till 14.10.2024. 5. Thereafter, when the order dated 12.07.2024, was not complied with, again, application for extension was filed   and   the   time   was   extended   till   8.11.2024   and thereafter also, the time was extended till 7.12.2024, on the application of the petitioner. Subsequently, extension has again been sought, which was again allowed and the time to comply the order dated 12.07.2024, was extended till 10.01.2025. 4 2025:HHC:26552 6. Despite   extension   of   time   by   the   learned Appellate Court, from time to time, the said order has not been complied with. 7. Thereafter, the applicant has approached this Court, by filing Cr.MMO No.65 of 2025, which was decided by this Court on 15th January, 2025, by extending the time by sixty days. 8. Admittedly,   the   said   order   has   not   been complied with and now, the petitioner, in pursuance of the non­bailable   warrants,   issued   on   account   of   non­ compliance of the order, is in custody from 28th July, 2025. 9. The main ground, upon which, the extension has been sought, is serious ailment of the father of the petitioner. In order to substantiate the said stand, the documents   demonstrating  the   ailment   of   his   father  has also been annexed. 10. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances that the petitioner is in judicial custody, on account of non­compliance of order dated 12.07.2025, this Court is of the view that the time, as prayed for, by the applicant,   by   way   of   the   present   application,   for 5 2025:HHC:26552 compliance of the order dated 12.07.2024, is liable to be given to him. 11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Let order dated 12.07.2025, be complied with, on or before 8th August, 2025. 12. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of.   Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge August 06, 2025(ps)