Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/415/2025 on 15 July, 2025
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
15.07.2025 CRLA No. 415 of 2025
Hon'ble G. Narendar, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Ankit Bisht, learned counsel holding brief
of Ms. Sudha Tamta, learned legal aid counsel.
2. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate
General with Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for
the State.
3. The application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025) is
preferred to condone the delay of 631 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 16.08.2023 and sentence of life
imprisonment imposed in Sessions Trial No.115 of
2021, 'State Vs. Sandeep @Lal', in Crime No.105 of
2021.
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 631 days requires
to be condoned, and is, accordingly, condoned.
7. The Registry to carry out the translation of
the T.C.R. and furnish the copy free of cost to the
legal aid counsel.
8. List on 13.08.2025.
9. Objections, if any, to the Bail Application (IA
No.02 of 2025) may be filed in the meantime.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (G. Narendar, C.J.)
15.07.2025 15.07.2025
NISHANT
