Prakash Thakur vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 419 of 2026 Reserved on 24.08.2026 02.09.2026 Present: Mr Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. The applicant/appellant has filed the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Court. 2. It has been asserted that the applicant was not aware of the Court proceedings and was under the impression that the proceedings initiated against him under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) would be dropped on the production of the accused. The applicant went to the last known address of the accused multiple times but could not find him. The applicant came to know about the proceedings when the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/Pocso), Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was sent to the Tehsildar for recovery of ₹1,00,000/-. There is a delay of 106 days in filing the appeal. The applicant was unable to understand the significance of the proceedings. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 2 3. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking a preliminary objection regarding lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were denied on merits. It was asserted that the applicant has not been vigilant and is not entitled to condonation of the delay. The applicant has failed to explain each day’s delay. The applicant has not attached any material to support the averments made in the application. Ignorance of law is no excuse, and the applicant is not entitled to the condonation of delay. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the application/appellant and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the application/appellant submitted that the applicant was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court against him and he remained under a bona fide belief that he would be exonerated on production of the accused. He made multiple efforts to secure the presence of the accused, which led to delay. The delay was not intentional but due to reasons beyond the applicant’s control. Therefore, it was prayed that the present 3 application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the applicant was present before the learned Trial Court and the plea taken by him that he was not aware of the proceedings cannot be accepted. The plea taken by the applicant that he remained under the impression that he would be exonerated on production of the accused does not constitute any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The record of the learned Trial Court shows that a notice was issued to the present applicant/appellant under Section 446 Cr.P.C. to show cause as to why the amount of bond furnished by him be not realised from him. He appeared before the Court through his learned counsel on 14.06.2023 and sought adjournments for filing reply, which were allowed. The matter was listed on 30.12.2024 when the applicant was not present; hence, the Court ordered the issuance of notice to him. He was served on 4 21.06.2025, but he failed to appear before the Court. Hence, the Court passed an order imposing a penalty of ₹1,00,000/- on 25.10.2025. Therefore, the plea taken by the applicant that he was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court is not acceptable. He was served with notice, and he was represented by learned counsel before the learned Trial Court. The Court had again issued notice to him, but he failed to appear before the Court despite the service of notice. A person cannot take advantage of his negligence, and the plea taken by the applicant that he was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings cannot be accepted. 9. The applicant asserted that he remained under the impression that he would be exonerated on production of the accused before the learned Trial Court. He did not claim that he had produced the accused before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, this impression in the applicant’s mind would not assist him. 10. Therefore, the applicant has failed to make out any case for the condonation of the delay. 11. Even otherwise on merit, the record shows that the main accused has been declared a proclaimed offender. The applicant had furnished a surety bond before the learned Trial Court undertaking to pay ₹1,00,000/- in case 5 of failure to produce the accused before the learned Trial Court. The accused had failed to appear before the learned Trial Court and the applicant is liable to pay the amount in terms of undertakings furnished by him. 12. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Kunju versus State of Karnataka 1998(8) SCC 660 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to remit the matter considering that the offence was not serious. In the present case, the offence alleged against the main accused is under Sections 363 and 366A of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, which are serious in nature because they involve the safety of the young children. Hence, the cited judgment does not apply to the present case. 13. It was submitted that the applicant is a poor person and is unable to pay ₹1,00,000/-. This submission is not acceptable. The applicant had furnished an affidavit before the learned Trial Court asserting that he is the owner of 1 bigha of land which is worth ₹10,00,000/-. Thus, he cannot be said to be a poor person as per his own affidavit. 14. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Trial Court even on merits. 6 15. In view of the above, the present application fails and is dismissed. Cr. Appeal (ST) No. 1825 of 2026 16. Since the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed as being barred by limitation, the proposed appeal is hereby disposed of as infructuous along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 2nd September, 2026 (Nikita)