ROHIT KAISTHA Versus STATE OF HP CRMPM-596 of 2026 17.06.2026 Present: Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. B.R. Kashyap, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. CRMPM-596 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying petition, which is barred by limitation. Though by way of filing reply, non-applicant/respondent-State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua delay in maintaining the accompanying petition, however, having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner and as such, delay in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CRMP No.1341 of 2026 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay in re-filing of the criminal revision petition after removing the objections is condoned. Application is disposed of. Cr. Revision No.____ of 2026 Be registered. Admit. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, waives service of post-admission notice on behalf of respondent/State. List for hearing in due course. Record be called for. Cr.MP No.______ of 2026 (CRMPST/536/2026) Be registered. This is an application for suspension of the sentence and releasing the applicant/petitioner on bail. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner that the applicant/petitioner was on bail during the trial. The petition already stands admitted. There are arguable points involved in the petition. The hearing of the petition will take some time. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in case registration No.78/2021, titled State of H.P. Vs. Rohit Gupta and Others, on 30.12.2022/16.01.2023, is suspended during the pendency of the petition and the applicant/petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks with the conditions that the applicant/petitioner shall appear in the Court as and when directed and shall surrender to serve out the sentence imposed in case his petition is ultimately dismissed. This order is further subject to the applicant/petitioner depositing the entire amount of fine, if not already deposited, within a period of four weeks before the trial Court. The application stands disposed of. June 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge