Sada Ram vs State of HP Cr.MP No. 2403 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.09.2025 28.10.2025 Present: Mr.Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate legal aid counsel for the applicant. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the Respondent/State Cr. MP No. 2403 of 2025 The applicant has filed the present application to seek an extension of time granted by the Court on 4thMarch 2025. It has been asserted that the court had suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment on 4th March 2025, subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and deposit of the fine amount, if not deposited earlier, within a period of one month. The counsel for the applicant tried his level best to contact the applicant to apprise him about the order passed by the Court, but the his mobile was defective, and the counsel was unable to contact the applicant.The applicant is a poor rustic villager, and he could not contact the learned counsel. The matter was listed before the court on 2ndJune 2025. Thelearned counsel again tried to contact the applicant and was successful. He apprised the applicant about the orders dated 4thMarch 2025 and 2ndJune 2025 passed by the Court, and advised him to visit the office to file an application for extension of time. The applicant visited the office on 6thJune 2025. The order could not be complied with because of the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Hence, the application. 2. No reply to the application was filed. 3. Heard. 4. It is undisputed that a legal aid counsel has been provided to the applicant, which shows his poverty. His plea that his mobile phone became defective is supported by an affidavit. No affidavit to the contrary was filed by the State. Mobile phone getting defective is a circumstance beyond the control of a person, and the poverty of applicant to get it repaired or purchasing a new mobile phone cannot be held against him. Hence, there is sufficient reason for extending the time granted by the Court. 5. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the time granted by the court on 4th March 2025 to furnish the bail bonds and deposit of fine amount is extended by four weeks. 6. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. MP No. 877 of 2025 7. The applicant has filed the present application for suspension of the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. No reply to the application was filed. 8. Heard. 9. The learned Trial Court has imposed a maximum sentence of one year. The revision was filed in the year 2025 and is not likely to come for hearing soon because of the huge pendency of criminal matters before this court. The applicant would have undergone a substantive part of the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court by the time his revision would come up for hearing. This would defeat the very purpose of filing the revision. Therefore, the order dated 4th March 2025 is made absolute till the disposal of the revision petition. 10. The present petition stands disposed of. Cr. Revision. 140 of 2025 11. The record has been received. 13. List for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th October 2025 (ravinder)