1 2025:CGHC:55398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3111 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shivkumar S/o Shriram Kewat Aged About 40 Years R/o Nawagaon Gamju, Police Outpost Junapara, Police Station- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Golu Kewat S/o Dhaniram Kewat Aged About 21 Years R/o Nawagaon Gamju, Police Outpost Junapara, Police Station- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anuj Kumar Kewat S/o Shriram Kewat Aged About 32 Years R/o Nawagaon Gamju, Police Outpost Junapara, Police Station- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. Heard on IA No.01/2024 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.11.14 11:58:11 +0530 2 2. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. ChandraMani and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 132 in para 11, held that:- “It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court - be it by private party or the State - are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note- marking, file pushing and passing on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decision are taken by the officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay-intentional or otherwise is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit.” 3. In light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the reasons mentioned in the application for the delay, I.A. No.01/2024 is allowed and the delay of 207 days in filing the instant 3 appeal is condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that he wants to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file an appropriate application before appropriate Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham