NARESH SINGH Versus STATE OF HP CRMPM-786 of 2026 29.06.2026 Present: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. CRMPM-786 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred by limitation. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, non-applicant/respondent-State has filed reply, wherein prayer made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay has been opposed on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred by limitation. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, this Court finds that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., in case No.14-II of 2007, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Naresh Singh, wherein applicant-petitioner came to be convicted for his having committed offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, applicant/petitioner filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.02.2024. 4. It is averred in the application that since factum with regard to passing of judgment was not in the knowledge of the applicant/petitioner, he was unable to file criminal revision petition well within the stipulated time. Applicant/petitioner came to know about the dismissal of appeal in the month of February 2026, when he personally enquired about his case from the Court. Immediately, applicant/petitioner filed application for supply of certified copy, which came to be supplied to him on 11.03.2026 and thereafter, he filed accompanying criminal revision petition on 26.04.2026. 5. Though having carefully perused reply filed by non-applicant/respondent-State this Court is persuaded to conclude that no satisfactory explanation has been rendered on record qua each day’s delay, but having taken note of the fact that by delaying the filing of appeal, applicant/petitioner has not gained anything, rather sword of his being arrested is hanging on his head continuously. It appears that in the month of February 2026, non-bailable warrants were also issued against the applicant/petitioner for his having failed to surrender before the jail authorities for undergoing the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. It is only after issuance of non-bailable warrants, applicant/petitioner contacted his lawyer, who advised him for collection of relevant documents, enabling him to file the criminal revision petition. Immediately, after receipt of requisite material, learned counsel representing the applicant/petitioner proceeded to file criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on 26.04.2026. 6. Having taken note of averments contained in the application as well as rejoinder to the reply filed by non- applicant/respondent-State, coupled with the fact that applicant/petitioner is a resident of Punjab, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision 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 accompanying criminal revision petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. 7. The application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No._______ of 2026 8. Be registered. 9. Admit. 10. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, waives service of post-admission notice on behalf of respondent/State. Record be called for. 11. List for hearing in due course. Cr.MP No._____ of 2026 (CRMPST/3400/2026) 12. Be registered. 13. This is an application for suspension of sentence. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was on bail during trial. The petition has been admitted. There are arguable points in the petition. The hearing of the petition will take some time. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence of the applicant is suspended, subject to depositing the entire fine amount, if not already deposited, within a period of four weeks and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within the same period with the condition that the applicant shall appear in Court, as and when directed and shall surrender to serve out the sentence imposed, in case the petition is ultimately dismissed. The application stands disposed of. June 29, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge