1 2025:CGHC:19911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1434 of 2025 1 - Satyanarayan Agrawal S/o Shri Thakur Sidas Aged About 60 Years R/o New Khursipar, Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhannalal Arya (Retired) S/o Shri Sevaram Arya Aged About 74 Years Chief Executive Officer, Sada, Bhilai, Presently Posted As Joint Commissioner, Land Records And Bandobast, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 3 - Lalit Kumar Panigrahi (Retired) S/o Shri Sadanand Panigrahi Aged About 65 Years Superintending Engineer, Sada, Bhilai, Presently Posted As The C.E.O., B.D.A, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gopal Krishna Agrawal S/o Shri Dayakrishna Agrawal Aged About 78 Years Executive Engineer, Sada, Bhilai, Presently Retired R/o House No. 1/21, Anuppur, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Aghori Priyadarshi (Retired) S/o Shri A.V. Sinha Aged About 62 Years Executive Engineer, Sada, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Nemichand Bakliwal S/o Jorawarmal Bakliwal Aged About 70 Years R/o Station Road, Near Taar Ghar Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Lekhraj Medhani S/o Laddharam Medhani Aged About 76 Years R/o Fafadih Naka, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Murli Rathi S/o Liladhar Rathi Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. Mig 141, Padmnabhpur, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - Chaturbhuj Rathi S/o Lalchand Rathi Aged About 52 Years R/o Ganjpara, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 10 - Kamlesh Chandrakar S/o Makhanlal Chandrakar Aged About 57 Years R/o Kelabadi, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 11 - Mahesh Parganiha S/o Kejuram Parganiha Aged About 65 Years R/o Idgah Bhatha, Behind Ashram, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12 - Arjun Chandra Das S/o Ramchanra Das Aged About 74 Years R/o State Bank Chowk, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (I) Vidyaratan Bhasin (Ii) Ashwani Kumar Verma (Retired) (I) And (Ii) Who Are Respondents No. 06 And 08 Respectively In The Order Annexure P/1 Have Not Been Made A Party In The Instant Crmp As They Have Passed Away. ... Petitioners versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Superintendent Of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel lawyer along with Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge) Order on Board 30.04.2025 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed in CrMP No. 1025 of 2020 whereby the I.A. No. 01/2020 therein that is an application for condonation of delay of 1205/1502 days in filing the appeal, was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that the State had filed an I.A. No. 01/2020 an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, in CrMP No. 1025 of 2020 in which the State explained the 3 cause of delay. Petitioners were acquitted by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2016 and the appeal filed by the State challenging the said judgment of acquittal was allowed, thereby condoning the delay of 1205/1502 days in filing the acquittal appeal. Further on the same date CrMP No. 1025 of 2020 that is the application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. was also allowed and the leave was granted to the State and the registry was directed to register the case under the head of Acquittal Appeal and then directly, bailable warrant was issued against the present petitioners for their presence before this court. As of now, the said acquittal appeal is pending before this court bearing registration no. ACQA No. 789 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court has caused grave error in allowing the application for condonation of delay of 1205/1502 days in filing the acquittal appeal by the Respondent State without there being any sufficient cause been shown by the Respondent/State. The Respondent/State in IA No. 01/2020 has only explained the delay from 02.01.2020 to 14.07.2020 that is from the date when the Department of law and Legislative Affairs, Govt of Chhattisgarh has sent a proposal to the Office of Advocate General vide memo dated 02.01.2020 to prepare and file the appeal against the Judgment of Acquittal passed by the Trial Court till the date of filing of appeal but the delay from the 4 date of Judgment dated 17.11.2016 to date of issuance of memo dated 02.01.2020 has not been explained. The court has passed the impugned order without issuing notice and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Accused Petitioners. The petitioners were acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment of Acquittal dated 17.11.2016 and the appeal has been filed by the Respondent State challenging the said judgment of Acquittal on 14.07.2020 that is after about 04 years and the Court has allowed the IA thereby condoning the huge and unexplained delay of almost 1205/1502 days in filing the acquittal appeal. Not only this, this Court has allowed the CrMP No. 1025 of 2020 that is the application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. and by the same order has granted the leave and registry was directed to register the case under the head of Acquittal Appeal and then directly bailable warrant was issued against the petitioners for their appearance before the Court without initially issuing any summons. 4. He further contended that this Court ought not to have detailed upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others reported in 1996 3 SCC 132 in taking extra ordinary liberal approach in condoning the delay of huge and unexplained delay of 1205/1502 days in filing the appeal only because the petitioner is the State. Thereafter, this 5 court granted the leave in favor of the Respondent State firstly, without hearing the Accused who have been acquitted by the Trial court by a detailed and well reasoned Judgment and secondly, without perusal and scrutiny of judgment of acquittal as well as oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is clear from the perusal of judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court has the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused petitioners they have been charged for the alleged offences only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, there is no iota of either oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution so as to connect the accused petitioners with the alleged criminal acts. Hence he prays that the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 kindly be considered afresh in the presence of legal representatives of the accused persons thereby affording them with an opportunity of hearing. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that the acquittal appeal has already been registered in pursuance of the order of this court passed in CrMP No. 1025 of 2020 and the acquittal appeal is listed for final hearing on 2nd of May, 2025. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6 7. The indisputable facts of the case are such that the State has filed an IA No. 01/2020 an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, in CrMP No. 1025 of 2020. The delay was for approximately 04 years. The application for condonation of delay was allowed and on the same date the application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. was allowed and leave was granted to the State and the registry was directed to register the case under the head of Acquittal Appeal. Subsequently, bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners for their presence before the court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 8845/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Court ordered as under:- “1. Delay condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 4. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 6. It goes without saying that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in the High Court. “ 8. As of now the acquittal appeal is pending before the court and is listed for final hearing on 02nd of May, 2025. 9. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the facts, this court is of the considered view that the court is unable to 7 understand as to why the petitioners do not want to participate in the proceedings of the concerned court, when the matter has already reached at the stage of final hearing and is arguing only on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that they are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High court and dismissed the special leave petition of the petitioners. 10. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza