Kantilal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3256)
2026 Latest Caselaw 771 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kantilal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3256) on 19 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:3256]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 30/2026

Kantilal S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vill. Kherki Fala
Meghat, P.s. Parsad, Dist. Udaipur. (Presently Lodged In Central
Jail, Udaipur).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Bharat Shrimali
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/01/2026

1. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking restoration

of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2451/2023, which came to be

dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2024 passed by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court and thereafter vide order dated 12.03.2024

passed by the learned Deputy Registrar, on account of non-

compliance of office objections, namely, non-filing of extra set

within the time granted by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the non-

compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate and occurred

due to bona fide reasons. It is further submitted that the applicant

has now removed the defects and is ready to comply with all

procedural requirements forthwith. It is prayed that the criminal

appeal may be restored in the interest of justice.

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:14:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3256] (2 of 2) [CRLMA-30/2026]

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

4. This Court is of the view that the criminal appeal has been

dismissed on a technical ground. It is well settled that procedural

rules are handmaid of justice and should not be allowed to defeat

substantial justice. No serious prejudice would be caused to the

respondent if the appeal is restored, whereas denial of restoration

would result in irreparable loss to the applicant.

5. The appeal has been dismissed by the registry simply on the

ground that the appellant failed to supply extra set of the memo

of appeal within two years. The appellant had challenged a

judgment of conviction & order of sentence passed by the trial

Court wherein he was sentenced to suffer 20 years imprisonment.

Dismissing an appeal in this fashion is not permissible.

6. Considering the explanation offered and in the interest of

justice, this Court finds it a fit case for exercising powers under

Section 528 of the BNSS.

7. Accordingly, the application for restoration is allowed and the

registry is directed to restore the S.B. Criminal Appeal No.

2451/2023 to its original number.

(FARJAND ALI),J 144-Samvedana/-

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:14:36 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)