Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8735 (HP)

GYAN CHAND v. Central Bureau of Investigation

CRMPM/388/2026 · 2026-05-18

Sandeep Sharma

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

GYAN CHAND Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CRMPM-388 of 2026 18.05.2026 Present: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. CRMPM-388 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal, which is barred by limitation. Non-applicant/respondent has filed reply, whereby prayer made on behalf of the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay has been opposed on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay of 98 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal. 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 appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/appellant and as such, delay in filing the appeal, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Criminal Appeal No.______ of 2026 Be registered. Admit. Notice. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent. Record be called for. Cr.MP No.______ of 2026 Be registered. This is an application for suspension of sentence. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was on bail during trial. The appeal has been admitted. There are arguable points in the appeal. The hearing of the appeal will take some time. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence of the applicant is suspended, subject to depositing the entire fine amount, if not already deposited, within a period of four weeks and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within the same period with the condition that the applicant shall appear in Court, as and when directed and shall surrender to serve out the sentence imposed, in case the appeal is ultimately dismissed. The application stands disposed of. May 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge