Lokender Vs State of Hp

¶1

Lokender vs State of H.P

¶2

Cr. MP(M) No.660 of 2026

¶3

18.05.2026 Present: Mr. Abhinav Ghabroo, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State

¶5

Cr.MP No.1924 of 2026

¶6

The present application has been filed for placing on record an affidavit of the applicant for explaining the delay. Since the affidavit is in support of main application for condoning the delay, hence, the present application is allowed and the affidavit annexed with the application is taken on record.

¶7

The present application stands disposed of.

¶8

CRMP (M) No.660 of 2026

¶9

The present application has been filed for condoning the delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal. It has been asserted that the family of the appellant had approached various lawyers to prefer an appeal but did not obtain favourable or prompt response from them. Hence, the appeal could not be filed within time. The family of the appellant has modest mean of their livelihood and had to arrange the money from their relatives, and for this reason, there is delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal. Hence, the present application.

¶10

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that he does not want to file any reply to the application and he has no application, in case the present application is allowed. Heard.

¶11

The contents of the application are duly supported by the affidavit of the mother of the applicant, hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the facts mentioned in the application at this stage.

¶12

Since, the poverty of a person cannot be a reason to deny justice to a person, therefore, the application cannot be dismissed because the family of the applicant was unable to arrange money in time. Consequently, the present application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

¶13

Cr. Appeal No._____ of 2026

¶14

[Cr.A(C-SB)/2222/2026]

¶15

The delay in filing the appeal has been ordered to be condoned as per order passed in Cr.-MP No.660 of 2026. Copy of the appeal supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General. Let record of the learned trial Court be requisitioned.

¶16

CRMPNo._____of 2026 [CRMPST No.2223/26]

¶17

It be registered.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

Perusal of Para 50 of the judgment of the learned Trial Court shows that the applicant was found in 154 grams of Charas. Learned Trial Court had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, pay fine of Rs One Lakh for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶20

Prima facie, the sentence of five years for possessing 154 Grams of Charas appears to be disproportionate. Hence, there are arguable points involved in the appeal.

¶21

The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the applicant by the learned Trial Court is five years and to pay fine of Rs One Lakh for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶22

Keeping in view the huge pendency of cases and the time required for the transmission of the record from the learned Trial Court, the appeal is not likely to be heard soon, therefore, operation and execution of the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by learned Chairman,

¶23

HP State Waqf Tribunal, Exercising the powers of Special Judge, Dharmshala, District Kangra, H.P is ordered to be suspended till further orders, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount and deposit of the fine amount, if not already deposited earlier, with an undertaking to appear and serve sentence, in case of dismissal of the present appeal, within a period of one month from today.

¶24

Learned Trial Court is directed to transmit the bail bonds, so furnished by the applicant before it, for placing the same on record.

¶25

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶26

May 18, 2026 (meera)

Lokender v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokender v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Chander Paul Singh Vs Nain Tara Paul Singh

Khube Ram Vs Santosh Kumar

Karmo Vs State

Rupesh Sharma Vs Murlidhar

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Nasib Dei deceased through Lrs. Smt. Satya Devi Vs Tarshem Singh (deceased) through LRs Rajesh Kumar and others