CRLA/815/2024
2025 Latest Caselaw 1206 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/815/2024 on 21 July, 2025

                      Office Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                 proceedings or
         Date                                              COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                   directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      21.07.2025                        CRLA No. 815 of 2024
                                        Hon'ble G. Narendar, C.J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

1. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned legal-aid counsel.

2. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The application (I.A. No. 1 of 2024) is preferred to condone the delay of 06 days in preferring the instant criminal appeal.

4. It is an indisputable fact that the appellant/ applicant is undergoing incarceration in District Dehradun, pursuant to a judgment of conviction dated 21/22.10.2024 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2021, 'State Vs. Sunil Singh Rawat', in Case Crime No. 306/2020.

5. The issue regarding condonation of delay in appeals preferred by convicts has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18045 of 2024, "Mahesh Singh Banzara vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", and the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe in paragraph nos. 5, 6 & 7 as under :

"5. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence has attained finality. Consequently, the appellant has been deprived of his opportunity of assailing the said conviction as well as sentence.

6. In Dilip S. Dahaukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 528, this Court observed that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an offender who has been convicted is entitled to avail the right of appeal which is provided for under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Right of Appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of Article 21 is also a Fundamental Right. It was also observed in Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 382 (2), that where the appellant furnishes reasons for delay in filing an appeal, the court would not dismiss the appeal as time-barred without examining the reasons for the delay. Hence, in light of the above, it is evident that the right to appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court's order dismissing the appeal solely due to delay, without properly examining the reasons for the delay, therefore, warrants reconsideration. Hence, there is necessity of examining the reasons for delay in filing an appeal since the dismissal of the appeal based on mere technicalities, without a substantive assessment of the appellant's reasons, was erroneous.

7. In the circumstances, we find that the ends of justice would be subserved in the instant case if the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 is set aside.

Consequently, the delay of 1637 days in filing the Criminal Appeal No.1001/2021 is condoned by allowing the application being I.A. No.3780/2021."

6. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the delay of 06 days requires to be condoned, and is, accordingly, condoned.

7. The Registry to carry out the translation of the T.C.R. and furnish a copy free of cost to the legal-aid counsel.

8. List this case after defects are removed.

9. Objections, if any, to the Bail Application (IA No. 02 of 2024) may be filed in the meantime.

        (Alok Mahra, J.)                 (G. Narendar, C.J.)
         21.07.2025                          21.07.2025
Rahul