Gujarat High Court
Milapsinh S/O Shersinh Chandulal ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10195/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 10195 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19671 of 2025
==========================================================
MILAPSINH S/O SHERSINH CHANDULAL BRAHMAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ SAVALIYA(12918) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. Heard Mr. Pratik Barot, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, Learned APP for the respondent no.1/State and Mr. Nikunj Savaliya, learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
2. The petitioner is Care Health Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Corporate Manager. The petitioner has filed the appeal against the judgment of Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:53:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10195/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined acquittal. According to the case of the petitioner, seven policies were taken in the name of the deceased for total sum of Rs.2.10 Crores and in order to claim the said insurance money, the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein have committed murder of the deceased and created it as an accident. However, in a case registered against them under Section 302 of IPC, it is stated that they were acquitted by the trial Court erroneously. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the Insurance Company being the victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C, preferred appeal against the said judgment of acquittal.
3. There is a delay of 47 days for filing the appeal.
According to the petitioner, the said delay took place in obtaining necessary permission to prefer an appeal from the hierarchy of authorities of the Insurance Company. Since the petitioner/appellant is a health insurance company, some leeway is to be shown as the file has to run from table to table for obtaining necessary permission to prefer an appeal from the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:53:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10195/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined hierarchy of officers. Therefore, the petitioner has assigned satisfactory explanation and reasons for the delay that took place in preferring the appeal. No serious objection was also raised by the learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 except taking a formal objection relating to the prayer made by the petitioner to condone the delay.
4. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed condoning the delay of 47 days in preferring the appeal.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) (D. M. VYAS, J) Anuj Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 21:53:41 IST 2025