Rohit Kaistha Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rohit Kaistha Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both condonation applications disposed of with delays condoned; criminal revision petition ordered registered and admitted, post-admission notice issued with service waived for respondent-State, matter listed for hearing in due course and record called for; on the sentence-suspension application (CRMPST/536/2026), the substantive sentence dated 30.12.2022/16.01.2023 passed in case registration No.78/2021 is suspended during the pendency of the petition and the applicant/petitioner is ordered released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, conditional on deposit of the entire fine, if not already deposited, within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in maintaining the accompanying limitation-barred petition should be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

Delay in maintaining the accompanying limitation-barred petition is condoned: the Court found the delay neither intentional nor deliberate, occasioned by circumstances completely beyond the applicant/petitioner's control, and sufficiently explained.

Ratio / Principle

Application Cr.MP No.1341 of 2026 is allowed and the delay in re-filing the criminal revision petition after removing the objections is condoned.

Key takeaways

The substantive sentence imposed on 30.12.2022/16.01.2023 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (Himachal Pradesh), in case registration No.78/2021 ('State of H.P. Vs. Rohit Gupta and Others'), is suspended during the pendency of the revision petition and the applicant/petitioner is ordered released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to appearing in Court as and when directed, surrendering to serve the sentence if the petition is ultimately dismissed, and depositing the entire fine, if not already deposited, within four weeks.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Applicant/petitioner Rohit Kaistha sought condonation of delay (application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, CRMPM-596 of 2026) in maintaining an accompanying petition barred by limitation. Although respondent-State opposed the prayer on the ground that no plausible explanation for the delay had been rendered on record, the Court found the delay neither intentional nor deliberate and attributable to circumstances completely beyond the applicant/petitioner's control, and condoned it. Delay in re-filing the criminal revision petition after removal of objections was likewise condoned (Cr.MP No.1341 of 2026). The Cr. Revision petition was ordered registered and admitted; post-admission notice was issued, with the learned Additional Advocate General waiving service for respondent-State, and the matter was listed for hearing in due course with directions to call for the record. On the application for suspension of sentence (Cr.MP No.____ of 2026, CRMPST/536/2026), the substantive sentence pronounced on 30.12.2022/16.01.2023 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (Himachal Pradesh), in case registration No.78/2021, titled State of H.P. Vs. Rohit Gupta and Others, was suspended during the pendency of the petition, and the applicant was ordered released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to his appearing in Court as directed, surrendering to serve the sentence if the petition is ultimately dismissed, and depositing the entire fine, if not already deposited, within four weeks.

ROHIT KAISTHA

Versus STATE OF HP

CRMPM-596 of 2026

17.06.2026

Present: Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. B.R. Kashyap, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State.

CRMPM-596 of 2026

By way of instant application filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying petition, which is barred by limitation.

Though by way of filing reply,

non-applicant/respondent-State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua delay in maintaining the accompanying petition, however, having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner and as such, delay in filing the petition, which in my

considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

CRMP No.1341 of 2026

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay in re-filing of the criminal revision petition after removing the objections is condoned. Application is disposed of.

Cr. Revision No.____ of 2026

Be registered.

Admit .

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

Advocate General, waives service of post-admission notice on behalf of respondent/State.

List for hearing in due course. Record be called

for.

Cr.MP No.______ of 2026 (CRMPST/536/2026)

Be registered.

This is an application for suspension of the sentence and releasing the applicant/petitioner on bail. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner that the applicant/petitioner was on bail during the trial. The petition already stands admitted. There are arguable points involved in the petition. The hearing of the petition will take some time. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District

Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in case registration No.78/2021, titled State of H.P. Vs. Rohit Gupta and Others , on 30.12.2022/16.01.2023, is suspended during the pendency of the petition and the applicant/petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks with the conditions that the applicant/petitioner shall appear in the Court as and when directed and shall surrender to serve out the sentence imposed in case his petition is ultimately dismissed. This order is further subject to the applicant/petitioner depositing the entire amount of fine, if not already deposited, within a period of four weeks before the trial Court. The application stands disposed of.

June 17, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge