Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th June, 2014 discharging one Manjar Hossain @ Anu (opposite party No. 3) and one Kaushik Sen (opposite party No. 4) from the instant case. Prayer has also been made to add Sanjay Surekha (opposite party No. 2) as an accused person in the instant case and not to accept his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. as gospel truth and cite him as prosecution witness. There is a delay of 422 days in challenging the order dated 11th June, 2014. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was in jail in connection with another case till 3.12.2014 and during such incarceration his father died in November, 2014. The twin events had a traumatic impact on his life and accordingly, he was unable to pay attention to the court proceedings immediately upon being released on bail. Being the only responsible member of the family who is capable of managing its affairs, the petitioner had to make immediate arrangements regarding his family after the demise of his father and also had to take care of his widowed mother and sick sister. Only after making such arrangements in connection with his family affairs, the petitioner could divert his attention to the present litigation and after perusing the records petitioner found that the opposite party No. 2 had been illegally given a reprieve from the instant case due to faulty and sham investigation by the investigating agency engineered to screen him and upon obtaining legal advice from his lawyer has instituted the instant proceeding. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 has strongly opposed the condonation of delay application by filing an affidavit -in -opposition to it. It has been pleaded there that the petitioner was released on bail in December, 2014 and had admitted in his application that he had come out of his mental trauma by April, 2014 and thereafter there is no explanation of the delay in filing the application in August, 2015. It has further been argued that the medical reports annexed to the petition do not inspire confidence.
(2.) I have considered the materials on record and I find that the petitioner was in detention in connection with another case when the police report was filed in the instant case and prayer for discharge was made in favour of opposite party No. 2 and 3 herein. Petitioner was produced from custody on 11th June, 2014 and claimed that he did not wish to file a naraji petition to the prayer of discharge of opposite party No. 2 & 3 herein. Accordingly the prayer of discharge was accepted by the impugned order dated 11th June, 2014. The petitioner was finally released on bail in December, 2014. It is pertinent to note that his father expired in November, 2014 while he was in custody. After coming to terms with such traumatic experience the petitioner examined the papers in this case and decided to file the instant litigation. Perusal of the prayer in the petition shows that the petitioner has not only prayed for setting aside of the impugned order but also for arraying opposite party No. 2 as an accused in the instant case in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. The nature and scope of the prayer is, therefore, not restricted to the legality and propriety of the impugned order alone but also relates to the fairness of the investigation proceeding vis   -vis opposite party No. 2. Such prayer is to be countenanced by this Court in exercise of inherent powers which are not regulated by the laws of limitation but prompted on the principles of justice and fair play. I have referred to the nature of the prayer in the instant case in order to examine the justification of condoning the delay in the instant case. Having regard to twin circumstances, namely, petitioner was in detention when the impugned order of discharge was passed and that due to the sudden demise of his father while he was in custody he took sometime to arrange his family affairs before paying attention to the instant case and bearing in mind the nature of the prayer made in the petition which is not only restricted to the legality of order of discharge but is also directed against the lack of fairness and propriety of investigation proceeding in not arraying opposite party No. 2 as an accused in the instant case, I am inclined to accept the explanation offered by the petitioner and condone the delay in instituting the instant proceeding. Authorities relied upon by the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 are not apposite to the facts of the case for reasons as discussed herein below.
(3.) In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v/s. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., : 2012 (2) Supreme 244, Apex Court held that for the purpose of condonation of delay there is no reason why Government departments should be treated differently. The instant case does not relate to condonation of delay at the behest of a Government department but by an individual who was in incarceration for a major period of time for which the delay was caused and suffered the misfortune of losing his father during such detention. Therefore, the explanation that delay was caused in managing the family affairs due to such misfortune is a relevant consideration for condonation of such delay.;