The Court holds that in cases involving long-term convicts in jail appeals, a technical approach to delay condonation should yield to a sympathetic evaluation of humanitarian factors like the duration of actual confinement and conduct, utilizing Article 142 to ensure justice.

O R D E R

1. This petition arises from a very disturbing order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 11-1-2016 in JCRLA No.46 of 2015 by which the High Court declined to condone the delay of 3157 days in preferring Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and thereby dismissed the Criminal Appeal on the ground of being time-barred.

Signature Not Verified Digita2lly s.igned by We take notice of the fact that the petitioner was put to VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.05.07 Reasotn:rial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in CT No.20 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) respectively.

3. At the end of the trial, the petitioner was held guilty of the alleged crime and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

4. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial court is dated 25th August 2006.

5. The petitioner went before the High Court with a Criminal Appeal, however, there was a delay of nine years.

6. The High Court, by a very short order declined to condone the delay and thereby dismissed the appeal:-

“This appeal is beyond time by 3157 days. From the jail memo of appeal, we do not find any viable reason to condone the delay near about nine years. Delay condonation application is dismissed and appeal too stands dismissed.”

7. The High Court, while declining to condone the delay, ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner was already undergoing sentence past 12 years. The High Court ought to have also considered that it was an appeal through jail. This itself was sufficient for the High Court to take a practical view or rather a sympathetic view of the matter and at least ought to have condoned the delay so as to give one opportunity to the petitioner to argue his criminal appeal on merits. As on date, the petitioner has undergone almost 22 years of sentence.

8. We are informed that the petitioner has not been released even once on parole or furlough.

9. In such circumstances, referred to above, condoning the delay and asking the High Court now to hear the Criminal Appeal on merits will be a futile exercise

10. We heard Ms. Pragati Nikhra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Laxmi, the learned counsel for the respondent.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced the Conduct Certificate issued by the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Koraput dated 07.05.2026. The Conduct Certificate reads thus:

“Certified that, the life convict No.6297/A ARJUN JANI@TUNTUN, aged about 45 years, S/O- Late Mukunda Jani of Vill: Hirlidangri, PS: Nabarangpur, Dist: Nabarangpur, State: Odisha was detained in Jail custody since 20.01.2004 at Sub Jail, Nabarangpur being convicted in CT-20/2004 U/S 302 of IPC by the Hon’ble Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur and sentenced to undergo R.I for life on 25.08.2006 and he was received on transfer from Sub Jail, Nabarangpur to Circle Jail, Koraput on 20.09.2006.

During that, the period of his confinement in this Circle Jail his conduct and behaviour is satisfactory. His behaviour and attitude towards other Co-prisoner as well as staffs are also being quite satisfactory. The above named life convict has never any punishment in Jail Offence from the date of admission in to this Prison. Nothing adverse report / remark received during his period of confinement from the date of admission in to this Prison till date and he is working in this Jail in Laundry.”

12. We are convinced that we should release the petitioner on bail in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

13. Thus, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution as an exceptional case, we order that the petitioner be released on bail on he executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-

to the satisfaction