Back
Gujarat High Court Clears 146-Day Delay Hurdle: Rights Trump Technicalities in Case
In a ruling emphasizing the , the has condoned a staggering 146-day delay in filing an appeal against a trial court's order extending an accused's . A division bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani invoked Section 21(5) of the Act , underscoring that the right to —rooted in —cannot be thwarted by procedural lapses alone. The applicant, Ankush Kapoor , challenged the extension granted in an case involving and provisions.
This decision aligns with growing judicial scrutiny over custody extensions, as highlighted in contemporary reports noting the court's reference to ongoing deliberations on conflicting High Court views.
From Arrest to Appeal: The Timeline of Custody Battle
The saga began with Ankush Kapoor 's arrest on , linked to Case RC-26/2020/ /DLI . The sought to extend his from 90 to 180 days under and , arguing the investigation's complexity prevented filing a by .
The allowed the extension on , after issuing notice via Central Jail, Sabarmati—allegedly refused by Kapoor. Unaware or unable to respond, Kapoor applied for relevant documents on , receiving them only on . His appeal followed, filed 146 days late, prompting this condonation application under Section 21 of the Act read with Section 483 BNSS .
Defense Insists: No Notice, No Fair Hearing
Senior Counsel
, aided by
, argued the delay stemmed from Kapoor's continuous custody without copies of the extension application or advance notice. He claimed this violated Kapoor's
"
,"
depriving him of a hearing. Citing
orders in
Sushila Devi v. Union of India
(WP(Crl) No. 114/2024) and
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sarfaraz Ali Jafri
(SLP(Crl) Diary No. 5217/2024), Saiyed highlighted divergent High Court views on timelines and urged condonation to allow merits-based adjudication.
Fires Back: Refusal of Notice Seals Fate
's counsel countered fiercely, pointing to jail records showing Kapoor refused notice. He deemed the delay explanations inadequate and "deliberate," invoking precedents like Mahairing Hungyo v. ( ), Union of India v. Abdul Razaak ( ), and others including Samiuddin v. State ( ) to argue against condonation. Shah accused Kapoor of benefiting from his own refusal, urging dismissal.
Navigating Divergent Views: Court's Balancing Act
The bench meticulously parsed Section 21(5) Act , which mandates 30-day appeals but permits condonation for " ." Acknowledging -noted splits—some High Courts viewing 90-day limits as directory ( Allahabad, Bombay etc.), others mandatory ( Calcutta, Kerala )—it refused to let procedural rigidity eclipse Article 21 rights.
, the court reasoned, transcends statutory technicalities:
"The embargo of limitation of 90 days virtually renders an aggrieved person remediless which... is not the purpose of law."
Condoning delay wouldn't prejudice merits, especially with a parallel appeal pending for Kapoor. The ruling noted a coordinate bench's prior condonation of a 40-day delay in a related matter.
Key Observations
"The right to life andin ordinary circumstances cannot be irrationally barred even for a sufferer who seems indolent and the same cannot be rejected solely on the technical ground."(Para 10)
"... stands squarely on a different footing and therefore, the delay sought to be condoned... if not condoned would amount to deprive the applicant from his statutory right."(Para 11)
"When there is a divergence of views amongst the different High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court being seized with the similar issue... the order to condone the delay finds a good law."(Para 12)
Liberty's Door Ajar: Appeal Registered, Merits Await
"Delay of 146 days caused in preferring the appeal is condoned. Registry is directed to register the appeal and to assign the regular number."
This order keeps Kapoor's challenge alive without opining on extension validity—explicitly reserving merits. Practically, it bolsters accused in / probes facing notice/service hurdles, signaling courts' reluctance to let delays extinguish claims amid pendency. Future cases may hinge on " " proof, prioritizing substance over form in liberty matters.
