State of H.P. vs. Vivek Kumar along with connected matter Cr.MP(M) No. 2768 of 2025 and Cr. Appeal No. (C-SB) No. 31 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.07.2026 Cr.MP(M) No. 2768 of 2025 07.08.2026 Present: Mr Ajeet Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicant. Mr Kishore Pundeer, Advocate, for the non- applicant. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 31 of 2025 Mr Kishore Pundeer, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr Ajeet Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. The State has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the certified copy of the judgment was applied on 16.05.2025 and was delivered on 26.05.2025. The case was examined by the learned State Attorney/Public Prosecutor and was sent to the Principal Secretary (Home) through District Magistrate Bilaspur, H.P. It was received on 14.06.2025 and was referred to the Law Department for seeking the opinion, which was received on 19.07.2025. The competent authority granted permission to file the appeal, and the learned Advocate General was requested to file the appeal on 08.08.2025. The file was returned by the learned Deputy Advocate General with a request to file an application for condonation of delay, and the application was prepared and filed. Hence, there is a delay of 43 days which occurred because of the process of consultation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be ordered to be condoned. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking a preliminary objection regarding the applicant having not come to the Court with clean hands. The contents of the application were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the applicant has put up lame excuses to cover up the delay. Each day's delay has to be explained, and the applicant has not explained such delay. The reasons assigned by the applicant are regarding the routine administrative movement of the file from one office to another and do not constitute sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The State cannot claim any favourable treatment regarding the condonation of the delay. A valuable right accrued to the respondent after the lapse of the period of limitation, which should not be lightly taken away. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Ajeet Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State and Mr Kishore Pundeer, learned counsel for the non-applicant- respondent. 4. Mr Ajeet Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State, submitted that the State has to consult various authorities and cannot act like a private individual. The delay occurred because of the process of consultation with the various functionaries of the State. There is sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 5. Mr Kishore Pundeer, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the State cannot claim any favourable treatment regarding the condonation of delay and has to be treated like a private citizen. The explanation provided by the applicant is regarding the movement of the file from one office to another and does not constitute any sufficient cause. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply equally to the State as well as to the private party, and the State cannot claim any special exemption from the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This submission will not help the respondents. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., (2010) 5 SCC 459, that the Court should allow a certain latitude to the Government because the State represents the collective cause of the community, and the decisions are taken by the officers at a slow pace, causing the delay. It was observed: - 15. The expression “sufficient cause” employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Although, no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate— Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107: AIR 1987 SC 1353], N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123: JT (1998) 6 SC 242] and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [(2001) 9 SCC 106]. 16. 16. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasising that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay— G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer [(1988) 2 SCC 142], State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani [(1996) 3 SCC 132: AIR 1996 SC 1623], State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309: 1996 SCC (L&S) 1240], State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu [(1996) 10 SCC 635], State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO [(2005) 3 SCC 752: 2005 SCC (Cri) 906] and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan [(2008) 14 SCC 582 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 864]. 8. Therefore, the State cannot be equated to a private person. 9. In the present case, there is a delay of 43 days, which occurred because the various offices had to be consulted before filing the appeal, which is a reasonable ground as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the applicant has a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. 10. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) of 2026 (Filing No. CR. A(C-SB)11022/2025 11. The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned as per the order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2768 of 2025. The appeal be registered. 12. A copy of the appeal be supplied to the respondent. 13. The respondent/accused is directed to furnish personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Addl. Registrar Judicial of this Court within four weeks, undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed to do so and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case of acceptance of appeal. The bail bonds so furnished be transmitted to this Court for record. 14. List for hearing in due course with Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 31 of 2025. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) Judge 07th August, 2026. (Ravinder)