1 2026:CGHC:748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2496 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ku. Maneshwari Yadav D/o Late Shri Kanwal Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Halbapara, Vishrampuri, Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 2 - Ajay Das Manikpuri S/o Purandas Manikpuri, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Halbapara, Vishrampuri, Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For petitioner State : Mr. G.L. Uike, Panel Lawyer For the respondents : None (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Order on Board) 06.01.2026 1. Heard on I.A.No.2/2025 for condonation of delay in filing of the criminal petition. 2. There is a delay of 339 days caused in filing the petition/appeal. The prayer made in the acquittal appeal filed SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.01.07 16:34:59 +0530 2 along-with the petition shows that the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 110/2021 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon (C.G.) after appreciating the facts and evidence acquitted the respondents-accused from the offence under sections 315/34 & 318/34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that after passing the judgment of acquittal, the Law and Legislative Affairs department proposed to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal and thereafter the case was placed before the learned Advocate General. He submits that after obtaining necessary documents and instructions with respect to the case, the instant CRMP has been filed and due to departmental procedure, the delay has occurred in filing the instant appeal, which is bona fide and not intentional. He relies on decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 and prays that the delay of 339 days in filing the instant petition/appeal be condoned. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-State and on perusal of the reasons stated in the condonation application, it appears that the petitioner-State has tried to assert that the long delay of 339 days in preferring the instant petition/appeal has occurred due to departmental procedure. 5. The Supreme Court has consistently held in numerous judgments that long delays in filing appeals by the State, especially those caused by "departmental procedure" or "office delays", cannot be routinely condoned. The Court has emphasized that the State is 3 not entitled to preferential treatment in matters of limitation and that a "lackadaisical attitude" or "negligence" of government officials is not a sufficient cause to condone inordinate delays. 6. In a 2024 case, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, (2024 INSC 932) the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal due to an excessive delay of 1,788 days (nearly six years), stating that the State failed to provide adequate justification and that such a delay made a mockery of justice. The said dictum of Supreme Court further unequivocally establishes that the judiciary will maintain a strict stance on the condonation of delays, irrespective of the petitioner being a State authority. This judgment underscores the importance of administrative diligence and adherence to legal timelines, ensuring that the mechanisms of justice are not undermined by procedural lapses. Moving forward, state entities must enhance their internal processes to prevent delays, thereby safeguarding governmental interests and upholding the sanctity of the legal system. 7. In view of the above position of law, this Court is not inclined to condone the long 339 days in filing the instant petition/appeal merely on the ground of “departmental procedures”. Accordingly, I.A.No. 2/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the instant petition/appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham