Cr. MP(M) No. 637 of 2025 29.07.2025 Present: Mr. Ishaan Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Cr. MP(M) No.637 of 2025 The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of 134 day’s delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant/appellant was facing severe financial constraints and was unable to arrange the required resources for legal proceedings within the prescribed time limit. He sought the assistance for providing Legal Aid and the process of assigning a legal Aid Counsel and the subsequent preparation of the case took significant time. Hence, the application. The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application asserting that there is an inordinate delay of more than 134 days in filing the present appeal and the said delay is inexcusable and unjustified. The delay of 134 days in filing the present appeal shows his negligent attitude. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. Heard. The fact that the applicant/appellant was unable to engage a counsel and he was assigned a Legal Aid Counsel is supported on record by a letter assigning Legal Aid to the applicant/appellant. This is a first appeal and the statutory right of the convict, which cannot be taken away because of the poverty of the applicant/appellant. Hence, the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condoning delay. Consequently, the present application is allowed, and the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The present application stands disposed of. CRAST No.1515 of 2025 In view of the order passed in Cr.MP(M) No.637 of 2025, the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. Copy of the appeal has been supplied to the learned Deputy Advocate General. Appeal be registered. The record has been received. List the matter for consideration after two weeks. CRMPST No.1531 of 2025 Be registered. Heard. It appears from the perusal of the record that the victim did not support the prosecution case and she was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor after seeking permission from the learned Trial Court. Further, she admitted in her cross-examination that the case was registered by the police at the instance of Ram Pyari. She also admitted that nobody visited her house on the date of incident and she remained present with her son throughout the day and night. Prima-facie, these admissions made out an arguable case in favour of the applicant/appellant; hence the present application is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by learned Trial Court in Cr. Case No.57 of 2021, dated 08.08.2024, is ordered to be suspended till the decision of the appeal subject to the deposit of fine amount, if not deposited earlier and furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court undertaking to serve the sentence in case of dismissal of appeal and appear before this Court as and when directed to do so by this Court. Bail bonds be furnished and transmitted to this Court for record. The present application stands disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 29th July, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)