1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2393 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, O/p Manikpur, P.S. Kotwali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vinit Sharan S/o Rajendra Prasad Aged About 23 Years Resident Krishna Nagar, Behind SBS Colony, O/p Manikpur, P.S. Kotwali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : No one appears even after service of notice Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 20/11/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/25, for condonation of delay occurred in filing the Cr.M.P. 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 BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.11.21 11:53:21 +0530 2 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 is allowed and the delay of 357 days in filing the instant Cr.M.P. is condoned. 4. Also heard on admission. 5. Admit. 6. The application under Section 419(3) of BNSS has been filed seeking for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO) Korba (CG) in Special Case (POCSO) No.46/2022 whereby respondent Vinit Sharan has been acquitted 3 of the charges under Sections 354, 354(a), 506 Part-II of IPC and Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that arguable points have been raised by the petitioner/State for grant of leave to appeal. 8. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is allowed. Leave as prayed for is granted. 9. Let this CRMP now be registered as an Acquittal Appeal. 10. Call for the records of the trial Court and the matter be listed after 2 weeks. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai