AD 4 August 31, 2026 Ct. 28 SG CRA(SB) 131 of 2026 CRAN 1 of 2026 In Re. Application under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram in T.R. No.138 of 2025, arising out of G.R. No.1161 of 2024 corresponding to Beliabera P.S. Case No.104 of 2024 dated 27.11.2024, thereby acquitting the accused from a charge under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 In the matter of: Sanjit Patra … Appellant Mr. Samir Kumar Adhikari … for the appellant Mr. Kallol Mondal, ld. PP Mr. Sayak Chakraborti Ms. Supriti Sarkhel … for the State This is an application for condonation of delay in connection with an appeal. Affidavit of service filed by the appellant is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is an appeal against acquittal. There is a delay of about 266 days in preferring the appeal. First, the complainant claimed that he was shocked that the accused could be acquitted. Secondly, he tried to settle and negotiate the matter with the other side as there was a hope of settlement. But, the same failed. This caused a delay of 115 days. There were certain other causes for the delay 2 like for preparation of the brief. After all these, the appeal could be filed. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for condonation of delay. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The appellant has to satisfactorily explain the reasons for the delay caused. Moreover, it is trite law that delay for each day has been explained. However, it is true that the Courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning delay and the explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram and Ors., reported at 2023 SCC Online SC 1992. In the present case, admittedly there is a delay of about 266 days in preferring the appeal against acquittal. One of the main contentions of the petitioner seems to be that there was an attempt to negotiate and settle the matter with the other side even after the acquittal. If the appellant was truly aggrieved with the result of the trial, he should have immediately approached this Court. It appears from paragraph 7 of the application for condonation of delay that the petitioner claimed that there was some talk of settlement going on and an effort was made to negotiate the matter, which caused a further delay of 115 days in preferring the appeal. However, not a 3 single document has been relied upon to show that any effort was actually made to settle the matter with the other side, even assuming that this could be a ground for condoning the delay. One could appreciate if there had been financial constraints or other reasons like illness for causing any such delay. However, here it has been, inter alia, canvassed that there was a delay of 115 days for negotiating the matter with the other side, even after the acquittal and that too without any supportive document. Anybody can come up with such bald claim. This can hardly be a ground for condoning delay. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not satisfied with the explanation provided in the application for condoning the inordinate delay caused. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal against acquittal also, accordingly, stands dismissed. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)