1 Kunti Devi vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 1675 of 2025 Reserved on:04.05.2026 16.06.2026 Present: Mr Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the non- applicant/respondent. The applicant has filed the present application seeking condonation of one year, two months and seventeen days delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the applicant is a widow residing with her two sons. She and her sons were implicated in F.I.R. 51 of 2022, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 323, 324, 451, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant was released on bail after spending more than five months in jail, but her two sons were not released. The applicant was busy in getting the bail for her sons. Applicant’s son Kailash Kumar was released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order 2 dated 20.02.2025. Her other son is inside the jail. This led to a delay; hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply, making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. It was asserted that F.I.R. No. 50 of 2022 was registered at the instance of the applicant. The police found after the investigation that no offence was made out. Another F.I.R. No. 51 of 2022 was registered regarding the same incident, in which the police filed a charge sheet against the applicant and her sons. The revision is hopelessly barred by limitation, and no reasonable cause has been assigned for the condonation of delay. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 3 4. Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant was behind bars and was pursuing the remedies for getting bail for her sons. Her son Kailash Kumar was released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but her other son is still behind bars. The applicant could not file the revision earlier due to these circumstances; therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 5. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent State, submitted that the applicant has failed to make out any sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay. The incarceration of the applicant and her sons or pursuing the bail application are not sufficient to condone the delay. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 4 7. The applicant has assailed the order passed by the learned Session Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., accepting the cancellation report filed by the police in a F.I.R. No. 50 of 2022, dated 04.06.2022, registered at Police Station Kot- Kehloor, District Bilaspur, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. Prima facie, it is doubtful that the learned Sessions Judge could have entertained and decided the cancellation report in an F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under various sections of the IPC. 8. It was not disputed in the reply filed by the State that the applicant and her sons were arrested by the police. The applicant has placed on record the downloaded copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kailash Kumar vs. State of H.P. in Criminal Appeal number 861 of 2025, decided on 20th February, 2025, vide which, Kailash Kumar was ordered to be released on bail. This supports the averments in the application that the applicant’s son was confined to the prison and 5 was released on bail by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The applicant asserted that she is an aged, widowed lady and was dependent upon her sons to pursue the legal remedies. This plea is duly supported by an affidavit, and there is no reason to disbelieve it. The applicant would also have been distressed by the arrest of her sons; therefore, her case is to be liberally considered. 10. In view of above, the applicant had sufficient cause for not filing the revision within time. Hence, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned. 11. The present application stands disposed. Cr. Revision No. of 2026 (Filing No. Cr.R./3025/2025) The delay in filing the revision has been condoned as per the order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1675 of 2025. It be registered. 6 Let the record of the learned Trial Court be requisitioned, and the matter be listed for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th June, 2026. (ravinder)