1 2026:HHC:29336 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2082 of 2025 Reserved on: 8.7.2026 Date of Decision: 17.7.2026. Krishan Singh …. Appellant Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Applicant/Appellant : Mr Suneet Verma, Advocate, vice Mr N.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Non-Applicant/ : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Respondent/State Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of the delay in filing the criminal appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant is an illiterate person who was not aware of the legal proceedings. He came to know of the proceedings and the penalties after receiving the notice of recovery from the authorities. He obtained legal advice and filed the present application. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29336 2. No reply to the application was filed. 3. I have heard Mr Suneet Verma, learned vice counsel representing the applicant and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Suneet Verma, learned vice counsel representing the applicant/appellant, submitted that the applicant/appellant was not aware of the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. He came to know of the proceedings after the notice was served upon him by the Revenue Department. There was no negligence on his part. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the Court had issued a notice to the applicant. The applicant appeared before the court, and thereafter he was represented by his learned counsel. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the applicant was not aware of the date of the hearing. The applicant has made a false plea before the Court for condonation of the delay, and he is not entitled to the condonation. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3 2026:HHC:29336 6. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The record of the learned Trial Court shows that the matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 23.03.2022. The accused failed to appear before the Court. Hence, his bail bonds were forfeited to the state of HP. Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC were initiated against the accused and the surety (the present applicant). The surety appeared before the Court on 29.04.2022 and prayed for time to file the reply. He was represented by his learned counsel on 22.06.2022, who sought time to file the reply. A fresh notice was issued returnable for 24.02.2025. Learned counsel appeared on behalf of the surety and filed an application seeking an exemption. Subsequently, the surety appeared before the learned Trial Court with his learned counsel on 13.03.2025. His learned counsel appeared before the Court on 21.04.2025 and 27.05.2025. The matter was listed on 04.06.2025 for filing the reply as the last opportunity. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondent/surety and the learned Trial Court imposed the penalty of ₹2,00,000/- in terms of the bail bonds furnished by him. 4 2026:HHC:29336 8. The record of the main case also shows that the main accused has been declared a proclaimed offender. Therefore, the surety has failed to fulfil the terms of the undertaking given by him in the bail bonds that he would be producing the accused on each and every date of hearing. 9. The record shows that notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared in person as well as through his counsel. Therefore, a false plea has been taken by the applicant before this Court that he was not aware of the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. It was laid down by the Bombay High Court in Sanjay vs. Vinayak (31.07.2023 - BOMHC): MANU/MH/2936/2023 that when a person has taken a false plea regarding non-receipt of the summons, he is not entitled to the condonation of the delay. It was observed: 11. Considering the above evidence, the first appellate Court has held that the appellant has lodged the application on false grounds that he has not received a suit summons; has not engaged an advocate, and that he had no knowledge of the suit till he received notice from Patwari. The first appellate Court then noted that the judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court on 25.01.2011. The limitation, therefore, commenced from the said date. Thus, there is an enormous delay of 1014 days in filing the appeal. 12. The first appellate Court then referred to the judgment in the case of Basawraj & another vs. Special L and Acquisition 5 2026:HHC:29336 Officer, reported in MANU/SC/0850/2013 : (2013) Vol. 14 SCC 81, wherein the Apex Court has by referring to a plethora of judgments, as regards what constitutes 'sufficient cause', has summarized the law in Paragraph 15 as under:- "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the "sufficient cause", which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only with the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time, condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions, and it is tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature." 13. The first appellate Court has rightly noted that the law laid down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the present case. The party here, i.e. the present appellant, is not only negligent and lacking bona fides but has put forth a false plea and, therefore, the application came to be rejected. 10. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. 2010 (2) SCC 114, that a new creed of litigants has cropped up who do not have any respect for truth and 6 2026:HHC:29336 shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The Courts should evolve new rules to deal with such litigants and should not permit a premium on fraud. It was observed: - “1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life, i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era, and the people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the courts, irrespective of the consequences. However, the post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. Materialism has overshadowed the old ethos, and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter in falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules, and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” 11. It was laid down in Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 641, that a litigant who suppresses material facts or makes a false statement 7 2026:HHC:29336 cannot seek justice from the Court. His petition is liable to be thrown at the threshold. It was observed: - 11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision- making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court. In paragraph 5 of the decision of this Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath(1994) 1 SCC 1, it is held thus: “5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant to impart justice between the parties. One who comes to the court must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, the process of the court is being abused. Property- grabbers, tax evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 8 2026:HHC:29336 12. Delhi High Court also held in Awaneesh Chandra Jha v. Anil Prasad Nanda, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1866, that dishonesty must not be permitted to bear fruit, and once fraud is proved, an advantage derived by a person has to be withdrawn. It was observed: - “60. The unquestioned legal position is that dishonesty must not be permitted to bear fruit; that collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive others of their rights would render a transaction void ab initio; that suppression of material documents would amount to fraud upon the court; that once fraud is proved, all advantages gained by the fraud can be taken away; and that every court has inherent powers to recall its orders obtained by fraud since such order is non est. This necessarily implies that at any stage of a proceedings, if it appears to a court that fraud is being played upon it, the court must not permit a litigant to obtain any benefit and must nip any such effort in the bud.” 13. Therefore, the applicant cannot be held entitled to the condonation of delay because of his conduct of making false pleas to gain advantage from the Court. 14. Even otherwise, the applicant has not shown any other cause for not filing the appeal within the limitation. 15. In view of the above, the present application fails, and it is dismissed. 9 2026:HHC:29336 Cr. Appeal (ST) No.7986 of 2025 16. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the proposed appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th July, 2026 (Chander)