Jeet Ram Vs Naresh Kumar alias Neshu — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Jeet Ram Vs Naresh Kumar alias Neshu — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the appeal against acquittal condoned and the condonation application (CRMPM No. 346 of 2026) allowed and disposed of; appeal directed to be registered as Cr.A.(A-DB) No. of 2026 / Cr.A.(A-DB)ST No. 1032 of 2026; leave application Cr.M.P.ST No. 1035 of 2026 disposed of as not pressed; records to be requisitioned; respondent to file Power of Attorney within two weeks; matter listed for further orders on 20.07.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, so that the delay may be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

In absence of rebuttal, considering the averments made in the application and the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, the reason assigned for the delay in preferring the appeal appears genuine and there is sufficient cause which prevented the applicant from filing the appeal within the limitation period.

Ratio / Principle

The delay in filing the appeal against acquittal is condoned; the condonation application is allowed and disposed of.

Key takeaways

Where the appeal against acquittal is being preferred by the complainant, a separate application seeking leave to appeal is not required to be filed with the appeal; accordingly the leave application (Cr.M.P.ST No. 1035 of 2026) was disposed of, being not pressed at this stage.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — appeal against acquittal by complainant/father of the deceased. Jeet Ram, father of the person murdered, applied (CRMPM No. 346 of 2026) to condone delay in appealing against the acquittal of Naresh Kumar alias Neshu vide judgment dated 04.12.2024 of the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 20/7 of 2020 (FIR No. 79/2020, Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Bilaspur, H.P.), the State having preferred no appeal. Counsel explained the delay by the applicant's lack of legal assistance and his impression that the State would appeal. Finding no rebuttal and satisfied that the reason was genuine and constituted sufficient cause, the Court condoned the delay, allowed and disposed of the application, and ordered registration of the appeal as Cr.A.(A-DB)ST No. 1032 of 2026. A companion leave-to-appeal application (Cr.M.P.ST No. 1035 of 2026) was disposed of as not pressed, the Court holding that where the appeal is preferred by the complainant, a leave application is not required to be filed with the appeal. Respondent directed to file Power of Attorney within two weeks; records requisitioned; further orders on 20.07.2026.

Jeet Ram vs. Naresh Kumar alias Neshu

CRMPM No. 346 of 2026

01.07.2026

Present: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate, for the applicant.

Mr. Himanshu Kapila, Advocate, vice Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent.

CRMPM No. 346 of 2026

This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing appeal against acquittal of the respondent, vide judgment dated 04.12.2024, passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 20/7 of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 79/2020, registered under Sections 364, 302, 201, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.

Respondent was served for 28.04.2026, on which date, four weeks’ time was granted to file reply as well as Power of Attorney with rider that no further opportunity shall be granted for this purpose and matter was adjourned for today.

Till date neither reply, nor power of attorney on behalf of respondent has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in cases involving heinous crimes like murder, normally State prefer appeal against acquittal, however, in present case, State has not preferred appeal and, therefore,

applicant, who is the father of the person murdered, preferred present appeal.

It has been further submitted that after receiving copy of the judgment passed by Trial Court, applicant could not prefer appeal for want of legal assistance. According to learned counsel for applicant, he was under impression that State may be preferring appeal, but when nothing was heard about it, then he preferred present appeal against acquittal along with present application.

In absence of rebuttal, considering the averments made in the application and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant during the course of hearing, reason assigned for delay in preferring appeal appears to be genuine and there is sufficient cause which prevented the applicant for filing appeal within limitation period.

In view of above, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed and disposed of.

Cr.A.(A-DB) No. of 2026 Cr.A.(A-DB)ST No. 1032 of 2026

Be registered.

Respondent is duly represented through counsel. Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent be filed within two weeks.

List for further orders on 20.07.2026 .

Cr.M.P. No. of 2026 Cr.M.P.ST No. 1035 of 2026

Be registered.

This application has been filed, seeking leave to file appeal against acquittal. As the appeal is being preferred by the complainant, this application is not required to be filed with appeal. Therefore, this application is disposed of, being not pressed at this stage.

Records be requisitioned.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

1st July, 2026

(Susheel)