Dinesh Kumar vs. Jeevan Kumar Cr.MP(M) No.464 of 2026 10.04.2026 Present Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent. Cr.MP (M) No.464 of 2026 Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent. He prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to file Power of Attorney. He states that he does not intend to file any reply to the application and shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the application is allowed. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on the account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner and as such, delay of 371 days in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of Cr. Revision No.___ of 2026 Admit. Issue post admission notice. Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, appears and waives service of post admission notice on behalf of the respondent. Record of learned Court below be called for. CRMPST No.1975 of 2026 Notice in the aforesaid terms. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks. In the meanwhile, substantive sentence imposed by learned Court below shall remain suspended, subject to the applicant’s depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks, with the condition that the applicant shall appear in the Court as and when directed and shall surrender to serve out the sentence imposed, in case the revision is ultimately dismissed. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge April 10, 2026 (shankar)