Rajeev Kumar @ Kudda vs. State of HP Cr.MP(M) No. 597 of 2026 8.5.2026 Present: M/s Kapil Sharma and Shivanshu Attri, Advocates, vice Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jitener Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Cr.MP(M) No. 597 of 2026 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant/appellant was in Jail and was not aware of the procedure. The family members of the applicant contacted the learned counsel which led to the delay; hence the application. The application is opposed by filing reply asserting that the appeal is time barred and no sufÏcient explanation for delay has been provided. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. Heard. It is undisputed that the applicant/appellant is in Jail, therefore, he would have been incapacitated from contacting the learned counsel. Hence the plea taken by him that he could not take steps to file the appeal within limitation has to be accepted as correct. Otherwise also, the first appeal is a valuable right of a person and he should not be deprived of it. Hence, the present application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (ST) No. 2549 of 2026 Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned vide separate order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 597 of 2026. Appeal be registered. Copy of the appeal has been supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General. Record be requisitioned. Cr.MP (ST) No. 2550 of 2026 Notice in the aforesaid terms. Application be registered. Reply, as prayed, be filed within two weeks and the matter be listed thereafter. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8th May, 2026 (Chander)