1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 208 of 2026 Xyz Nil ... Applicant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Manendragarh, District- Manendra-Chirmiri-Bharatpur. ... Respondent. For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Swati R. Gupta, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Order on Board) 09.02.2026 1. Heard on I.A.No.1/2026 - Application for condonation of delay in filing revision. 2. There is a delay of 321 days caused in filing the petition/revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2015. The prayer made in the revision shows that the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.109/2024 by the learned Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) Manendragarh, Koriya arising out of order dated 24.10.2024 passed Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.02.10 10:57:34 +0530 2 in Criminal Case No.71/2024 by the learned Principal Magistrate-Juvenile Justice Board, Baikunthpur, Koriya. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is behind the bars since 15.07.2024 and his family was not financially sound to file file revision for grant of bail to the applicant, therefore, the applicant could not approach this Hon'ble Court within the limitation period and when his family arranged some funds, the applicant has filed instant revision. Hence, delay of 321 days caused in filing the instant revision may be condoned. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the aforesaid prayer and submits that this revision deserves to be dismissed on the ground of such huge delay. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the reasons stated in the condonation application, it appears that the applicant has tried to assert that the long delay of 321 days in preferring the instant revision has occurred due to financial reasons. 6. In a 2024 case, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary , (2024 INSC 932) the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal due to an excessive delay of 1,788 days (nearly six years), stating that the State failed to provide adequate justification and that such a delay made a mockery of justice. The said dictum of Supreme Court further unequivocally establishes that the judiciary will maintain a strict stance on the condonation of delays, irrespective of the petitioner being a State authority. This judgment underscores the importance of administrative diligence and adherence to legal timelines, ensuring that the mechanisms of justice are not undermined by procedural lapses. 3 7. In the present case, it is noted that the statutory period for filing such a revision has long since expired, placing a heavy burden of proof on the applicant to justify every single day of the intervening period. The applicant has primarily sought to explain this laches by citing financial constraints. Upon perusal of the application, it is observed that these assertions are vague, unsubstantiated, and lack the necessary documentary evidence to prove that the applicant was rendered entirely incapable of pursuing legal remedies. 8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to condone the long 321 days in filing the instant revision merely on the ground of “financial reasons”. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2026 is dismissed. 9. Consequently, the instant revision also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Ajay