Gujarat High Court
Suresh @ Suryo Bahadur Mohaniya @ ... vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13665/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
13665 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26725 of 2025
==========================================================
SURESH @ SURYO BAHADUR MOHANIYA @ GYANSINGH KODARIYA
MOHANIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel waives service of notice of
rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. The applicant-convict has filed the present application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1253 days
caused in filing the captioned Criminal Appeal preferred against the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2019
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at
Bardoli, in Sessions Case No.15 of 2016.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Jaydeep Sindhi appearing for the present
applicant-convict has submitted that the present applicant is in jail
and therefore, it took some time to contact the advocate to prefer
an appeal before this Hon'ble Court and after the consulting with
the learned advocate, some more time gone in procuring the
certified copy of the impugned order and judgment.
4. Learned advocate has urged that considering the reasons
assigned in the application, the present application may be allowed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13665/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
by condoning the delay caused in filing the captioned criminal
appeal.
5. Learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel appearing for the respondent -
State has vehemently opposed the present application and has
submitted since there is an inordinate delay on the part of the
applicant-convict in preferring the appeal, the application may not
be entertained and the same may be rejected.
6. This Court has gone through the averments made in the
application as well as considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate for the applicant-convict. Since the applicant-
convict is in custody and is assailing his conviction, considering the
settled proposition of law that in case of delay, the cause is material
and not the length of delay, I am inclined to allow the present
application and to condone the delay.
7. It is needless to mention that the primary function of the court is
to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance
substantial justice. Rule of limitation is not meant to destroy the
rights of the parties. The court is aware of the fact that if delay is
not condoned, it would amount to dismissal of the appeal at the
threshold. In view thereof, the words 'sufficient cause' under Section
5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to
advance substantial justice.
8. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The delay of 1253
days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. Rule
made absolute.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
prk
