Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects State’s Appeal Over 228-Day Delay in Acquittal Case

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 109 | 2026:CGHC:3170-DB

January 20, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has refused to entertain a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the State of Chhattisgarh seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal, holding that an unexplained delay of 228 days was fatal to the case. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed the petition at the threshold, reiterating that government departments cannot claim condonation of delay as a matter of routine.

The State had challenged an order dated February 7, 2025, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, which had acquitted four accused persons in a sessions case. Along with the petition, the State sought condonation of a 228-day delay, attributing it to departmental procedures, internal approvals, and the movement of files between the Law and Legislative Affairs Department and the office of the Advocate General.

Rejecting this explanation, the High Court held that vague references to bureaucratic processes and administrative formalities do not constitute “sufficient cause” under the law. The Bench noted that the State failed to offer any specific or convincing reason explaining why the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed limitation period.

In its order, the Court relied heavily on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, including rulings that emphasize that the law of limitation applies equally to the State and private litigants. The judges underscored that condonation of delay is an exception, not a right, and that government departments are under a special obligation to act with diligence and promptness in legal matters.

The Bench observed that the explanation put forward by the State was essentially a narration of routine file processing, without demonstrating any bona fide obstacle that prevented timely filing. Such an approach, the Court said, falls short of the standard required to justify condoning an inordinate delay.

Concluding that no sufficient cause had been made out, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary powers and dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking leave to appeal solely on the ground of delay and laches. As a result, the acquittal order passed by the trial court remains undisturbed.

Case Reference : CRMP No. 217 of 2026, State of Chhattisgarh v. Farhaz Khan and Others; Counsel for the State/Applicant: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.