Bharat Sharma Vs. Radha Krishan Cr. MP(M) No. 574 of 2025 Reserved on : 17.07.2025 23.07.2025 Present: Ms. Ruchika Khachi, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. The appellant/applicant has filed the present application for condonation of 115 days’ delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant had gone to his native place in Madhya Pradesh to look after his ailing brother and to manage the family business. It took more than 4 months and he could not file the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is not intentional, but bona fide. There is a delay of 115 days in filing the appeal, hence it was prayed that the present application be allowed and delay be condoned. Ms. Ruchika Khachi learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had sufficient cause to condone the delay. He could not prefer an appeal, as he had gone to his native place. The applicant has an arguable case in his favour, which would be defeated by the delay, therefore, she prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. The application mentions that the applicant had gone to his native place to look after his elder brother. He has furnished the address of Bharat Fast Food, Police Station Road, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan and resident of village Baghash Post Office and Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, therefore, the affidavit of the applicant does not show him to be a resident of Madhya Pradesh. Moreover, no medical record was filed to substantiate the plea that the applicant’s brother was ill. The date of going to Madhya Pradesh and returning from Madhya Pradesh has also not been mentioned, therefore, the application does not disclose any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Even otherwise, on merits the applicant stated in his cross-examination that his monthly income was `50,000- 60,000 and his expenses were `30,000/-. Four cases were instituted by him regarding the issuance of the cheque. He had taken the loan from the Bank of `1.5 lakhs, but was unable to pay the same. He claimed that he had withdrawn `1 lakh from the Bank and handed it over to the accused. The admission made by him that he was unable to repay `1.5 lakh to the bank will make it highly doubtful that he had withdrawn `1 lakh from the Bank. As per cross examination his annual income was `2,40,000/- to `3,60,000/-. His claim that he had advanced `2,25,000/- to the accused without interest is highly improbable because he was paying interest to the Bank and would not have advanced the money to any person without any interest. All these circumstances, cause a serious doubt regarding the complainant’s financial capacity and the learned trial Court had rightly doubted the financial capacity of the applicant. Hence the submission made by Ms. Ruchika Khachi learned counsel for the applicant that she has an arguable case in her favour is not correct. Therefore, there is no reason to condone the delay, accordingly the present application fails and the same is dismissed. Cr. Appeal (ST) No.1669 of 2025 Since the application for condonation of delay has been order to be dismissed, the proposed appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 23rd July, 2025 (Ritu)