Bharat Sharma Vs Beli Ram

Bhrat Sharma vs. Beli Ram

Cr.MP(M) No. 572 of 2025 Reserved on:19.05.2026

16.06.2026 Present:

M/s Lalita Devi and Ruchika Kachi, Advocates, for the applicant/appellant. Mr Parikshit Sharma, Advocate, for the non-applicant/respondent.

¶5

The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of 115 days delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the appellant could not file the appeal within time because he had gone to his native place at Gram Gutour, House No. 34, Tehsil Mehgaon Gutour, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, to look after his elder brother and to manage the family business. The applicant’s elder brother was suffering from a serious health issue and was not in a position to run the family business. The delay occurred because the applicant was unable to return to Kandaghat to file the appeal. The delay was bona fide and beyond the circumstances of the applicant’s control. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing

¶6

1

¶7

2

¶8

the appeal be condoned.

¶9

The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. It is asserted that the applicant has not produced any treatment record or the travelling tickets to show that he was not in the State of Himachal Pradesh, but in Madhya Pradesh. The applicant had wilfully delayed the filing of the appeal, and there is no bona fide reason in the application. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶10

I have heard M/s Ruchika Khachi and Lalita Devi, Advocates, for the applicant/appellant and Mr Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent.

¶11

Ms Ruchika Khachi, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that the applicant had gone to his native place to look after his elder brother and manage the family business. The applicant’s brother was seriously ill, and the applicant could not return to Himachal Pradesh because of the ailment of his elder brother. The delay

¶12

3

¶13

was due to a reason beyond the control of the applicant; hence, she prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

¶14

Mr Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the applicant has failed to produce any material in support of the plea taken by him that he was away from Himachal Pradesh to take care of his elder brother. No record of the treatment or the tickets has been brought on record to show that the applicant had gone to his native place. The appeal is barred by 115 days, and there is no proper explanation for the delay. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶15

I have given considerable thought to his submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶16

4

¶17

The plea taken by the applicant that he had gone to his native place to take care of his elder brother is duly supported by an affidavit. There is no reason to disbelieve the contents of the affidavit at this stage. Merely because the applicant has not annexed the treatment record or the travelling tickets cannot lead to an inference that the applicant is lying. The respondent has also not asserted in his affidavit that the applicant was in Himachal Pradesh during the relevant time, and he is making a false statement. Therefore, the applicant’s version is accepted that he was away from Himachal Pradesh to take care of his ailing brother. Since the illness is a circumstance beyond the control of any person, the applicant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time.

¶18