Serial No. 26 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlM (1198/2024) in CrlA (D) 57/2024 UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION PULWAMA (HOME) …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Maha Majid, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG. Vs. SHAHID MUSHTAQ BHAT ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ashiq Hussain, Advocate vice Mr. Zia ur Rehman, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 13.05.2025 1. An appeal preferred by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against an order dated 6th December, 2023 passed by the Special Judge designated under NIA Act, Pulwama [“the Trial Court”] in case titled “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Shahid Mushtaq Bhat” is delayed by 235 days and, therefore, an application seeking condonation of delay bearing CrlM No. 1198/2024. 2. The delay has been sought to be explained by the appellant by pleading that the judgment impugned was passed by the Trial Court on 6th December, 2023, and it took a considerable time for the authorities to deliberate and decide as to whether an appeal against the impugned judgment is to be preferred or not. It is further submitted that after taking a decision to file appeal, an application was moved for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment and accordingly, the matter was taken up with the Law Department for accord of sanction for filing appeal. The Department of Law granted sanction for filing appeal vide Govt. Order dated 4th July 2024. It is submitted that the learned counsel who was to appear on behalf of the appellant also took some time to prepare the appeal. This, in a nutshell, is pleaded by appellant to explain the huge delay of 235 days. 3. The application is opposed by the respondent, it is submitted that the appellant was aware of the judgment passed on 6th December, 2023, but took no immediate steps to challenge the same by filing appeal within the statutory period. It is further submitted that appellants have not even indicated the dates when the decision was taken for fling the appeal and the certified copy of the impugned judgment applied for or obtained from Registry of this Court 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has miserably failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause which prevented it from filing an appeal within the statutory period. Admittedly the judgment impugned was passed on 6th December, 2023, and it may have taken some time for the appellants to take a decision as to whether the impugned judgment should be appealed against or not. 5. However, in the instant case, there is an inordinate delay in taking such decision. As a matter of fact, no such decision has been placed on record nor any date on which the decision to file appeal was taken. There is also no date indicated with regard to the appellants having applied for obtaining the certified copy etc. Other than the sanction order issued by the Department of Law, no other documentary evidence has been placed on record to explain such a huge delay. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay are only ipse dixit of the appellant and do not constitute sufficient cause for filing the appeal after an inordinate delay of 235 days. That apart, the impugned order/judgment of trial court is apparently well reasoned. At the time when the application for grant of bail was taken up for consideration by the trial court in as many as nine witnesses stood examined and not a single witness had directly connected the respondent with the commission of the offence he was charged with. 6. Having regard to the evidence that had come on record, the trial court exercised its discretion and granted the bail to the respondent. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any justification in the application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal after an inordinate delay of 235 days. The application is, accordingly, dismissed and consequently CrlA(D) 57/2024 also stands dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 13.05.2025 “SHAHID”