( 2026:HHC:39370 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 994 of 2026 Decided on 14th September, 2026 _____________________________________________________ Bittu Kumar …Petitioner Versus Sate of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Chetna Thakur & Ms. Chetna Thapar, Advocates For the respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner assails the order dated 01.09.2026, whereby his application seeking extension of time for filing the requisite bail bonds stands dismissed. 2. It appears from the record that the application seeking suspension of sentence was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court on 31.07.2026, whereby the petitioner had been allowed 30 days’ time to furnish the personal and surety bonds amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 3. Apparently, the petitioner could not do the needful -2- ( 2026:HHC:39370 ) within the stipulated time of 30 days. On 31.08.2026, the petitioner had preferred an application seeking further extension of time to comply with the order dated 31.07.2026. 4. Learned First Appellate Court dismissed the application and hence the present petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, in fact, on 30.08.2026 there was a gazetted Holiday i.e. Sunday. The application having been preferred on 31.08.2026, thus, was well within time. Nonetheless, the applicant had filed an application for seeking extension of time. 6. Learned First Appellate Court refused to grant the extension, as there were no compelling reasons shown by the petitioner. The perusal of the application so filed, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4, is suggestive of the fact that apparently the applicant-petitioner could not arrange the surety within the period of 30 days, despite his best efforts. 7. An application seeking extension of time thus should have been allowed, as the petitioner had unequivocally submitted that he was not able to arrange the surety during the said interregnum. 8. Without going into the merits of the contentions so -3- ( 2026:HHC:39370 ) raised, suffice it to say that since the petitioner had approached the Court merely for extension of time, it would have been in the interest of justice & fair play that seeing to the punishment imposed by the learned trial Court and the totality of circumstances, discussed above, if the petitioner should have been allowed time to, at least, file the personal and surety bonds. Consequently, the impugned order dated 01.09.2026, is quashed and set aside. As a sequel, the petitioner is directed to furnish the requisite bail bonds before the learned trial Court within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. 9. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed off accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 14.09.2026 (Ritu)