Jai Singh vs. Krishan Dass, through Salochna Gupta and others. Cr.MP(M) No. 736 of 2025 26.2.2026 Present: None for the applicant/petitioner. Mr Parikshit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.6-State. Cr.MP(M) No. 736 of 2025 The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for condonation of 203 days’ the delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the applicant is a bedridden and aged person. He has sustained multiple injuries in his legs. He remains out of station for his treatment from a ‘Vaid’. He could not contact his counsel for filing the revision. There is a 203-day delay in filing the revision due to factors beyond the applicant’s control. Hence, the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding the applicant having not come to the Court with clean hands and the applicant having suppressed the material facts from the Court. It was specifically denied that the applicant is bedridden or that he remained out of station. It was asserted that the applicant had not filed any record in support of his averment. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. When the matter was listed for consideration, none appeared on behalf of the applicant on 30.7.2025, 14.11.2025, 1.2.2026 and 23.2.2026; hence, none could be heard on his behalf. 4. I have heard Mr Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.6/State. 5. Mr Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5, submitted that the applicant has failed to establish any sufÏcient cause for the condonation of delay. He has not filed his afÏdavit or medical records to establish the plea that he is bedridden. Learned Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants of arrest to execute the sentence awarded by it, and the applicant has filed the present revision to circumvent the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy General for respondent No.6-State, adopted the submissions made by Mr Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 and submitted that the application be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The applicant has filed the present revision through a General Power of Attorney, which was executed in January, 2025 at Solan. This falsifies the applicant’s plea that he remained outside for his treatment. 9. The application is highly vague. It states that the applicant sustained multiple injuries to both legs, but does not mention the date of sustaining the injuries. The applicant has not filed his afÏdavit, any prescription slip, or the medical record in support of his plea. He claimed that he is receiving treatment from a ‘Vaid’; however, he failed to mention the name of the ‘Vaid’. All these circumstances make it difÏcult to rely upon the applicant’s version that he had sustained injuries to his legs, and he is bedridden. 10. The applicant has not mentioned any other reason for the condonation of the delay. 11. In view of the above, the present application fails, and it is dismissed. Cr. Revision (ST) No. 2129 of 2025 12. Since, the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been ordered to be dismissed; hence the present revision is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 26th February, 2026 (Chander)