2026:HHC:5300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1901 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.03.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Prakash Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant : Ms Prajwal Busta, Legal Aid Counsel For the respondent: Mr.Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General for respondent No.1/State Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. _____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the limitation, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal, which is barred by 304 days. 2. By way of filing reply to the application, respondent/State as well as private respondent Nos.2 to 4 have opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant on the ground that no plausible 2 2026:HHC:5300 explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal. 3. Having carefully perused the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is persuaded to agree with the learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel representing the respondents No.2 to 4 that delay in maintaining the appeal has not been explained properly. Only explanation rendered in application is that the applicant was unable to engage the lawyer on account of financial constraint. There is no specific mention with regard to date, on which, certified copy of judgment, which is purposed to be laid challenge in the accompanying appeal has been mentioned. It is also not averred in the application that when factum with regard to passing of judgment had come to the knowledge of applicant/appellant. 4. Moreover, this Court finds that non-applicant/State, which had contested the criminal case against non-applicants/respondent No.1 to 5, has chosen not to prefer any appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.01.2024. Learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse judgment dated 20.01.2024 of acquittal, fairly states that otherwise also appeal, if permitted to be instituted at the behest of the applicant, who happens to be the real brother of accused No.1 and 2, is likely to fail for want of cogent and convincing evidence. 3 2026:HHC:5300 5. In view of this, this Court sees no reason to allow the present application, accordingly, same is accordingly dismissed. March 02, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (meera) Judge