Allowed¶12

Rajeev Kumar alias Kudda v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 May 2026CRMPM/597/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajeev Kumar @ Kudda v. State of HP, Cr.MP(M) No. 597 of 2026, decided 08-05-2026 by Rakesh Kainthla, Judge: condonation of delay in filing first appeal granted where the applicant/appellant was in jail and thereby incapacitated from contacting counsel; first appeal held to be a valuable right not to be deprived of; appeal Cr. Appeal (ST) No. 2549 of 2026 registered; companion Cr.MP (ST) No. 2550 of 2026 notice issued, reply within two weeks. Keywords: condonation of delay, sufficiency of cause, imprisonment/incarceration, valuable right of first appeal, time-barred appeal, Himachal Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal condoned; application disposed of; consequentially Cr. Appeal (ST) No. 2549 of 2026 directed to be registered and record requisitioned. ¶12

Rajeev Kumar alias Kudda Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Rajeev Kumar @ Kudda vs. State of HP

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No. 597 of 2026

¶3

8.5.2026 Present: M/s Kapil Sharma and Shivanshu Attri, Advocates, vice Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Jitener Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

¶5

Cr.MP(M) No. 597 of 2026

¶6

The present application has been filed for

¶7

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant/appellant was in Jail and was not aware of the procedure. The family members of the applicant contacted the learned counsel which led to the delay; hence the application.

¶8

The application is opposed by filing reply asserting that the appeal is time barred and no sufÏcient explanation for delay has been provided. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

It is undisputed that the applicant/appellant is

¶11

in Jail, therefore, he would have been incapacitated from contacting the learned counsel. Hence the plea taken by him that he could not take steps to file the appeal within limitation has to be accepted as correct. Otherwise also, the first appeal is a valuable right of a person and he should

¶12

not be deprived of it. Hence, the present application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned.

¶13

The present application stands disposed of.

¶14

Cr. Appeal (ST) No. 2549 of 2026

¶15

Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶16

The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned vide separate order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 597 of 2026. Appeal be registered.

¶17

Copy of the appeal has been supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General.