Lekh Raj Vs CBI — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Lekh Raj Vs CBI — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Lekh Raj vs. CBI

Cr. MP(M) No. 205 of 2026

14.5.2026 Present: Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-CBI. Cr.MP(M) No. 205 of 2026

The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of 175 days’ delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant/appellant was taken in judicial custody and he had no effective access to legal assistance, documents and copies required to file the appeal. He handed over the copy of the judgment and the Power of Attorney to his counsel in October 2025 through his relatives. Learned counsel advised the applicant’s relative to bring a copy of the challan and statements of witnesses. The applicant belongs to a poor rural background and has no experience with court proceedings. He managed to secure the documents through his relatives and handed them over to his learned counsel on 10.2.2026. The appeal was filed immediately thereafter without any further delay. The delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. It was asserted that

the delay is substantial and the applicant has failed to show any sufÏcient cause for the condonation of the delay. The applicant had access to legal assistance through jail authorities, and he could communicate with his relatives, even from jail. The applicant has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the condonation of the delay. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

Heard.

It is undisputed that the applicant is in custody; therefore, the plea taken by him that he was incapacitated from collecting the documents and contacting the learned counsel has to be accepted as correct. Jail inmates indeed have access to legal aid, but the applicant has not approached this Court through legal aid counsel but through counsel engaged by him. The applicant cannot be penalised simply because he had not engaged a legal aid counsel but chose to engage a private counsel. The applicant has filed the first appeal, which is a valuable right of a person and should not be taken away unless gross negligence has been shown on the part of the applicant/appellant. In the present case, no such gross negligence was shown. Hence, the applicant/appellant is entitled to condonation of delay.

In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned.

The present application stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (C-SB ST) No. 961 of 2026

Vide separate order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 205

of 2026, the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. Appeal be registered.

Notice.

Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-CBI.

A copy of the appeal be supplied to the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

Records be called for.

Cr. MP (ST) No. 962 of 2026

Notice in the aforesaid terms.

Application be registered.

Reply to the application has been filed. Rejoinder,

if any, be filed within two weeks, and the matter be listed thereafter.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

14^th May, 2026

(Chander)