Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Md. Mohim S/o Md. Hameed – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 6970 of 2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The instant I.A. No. 6970 of 2024 has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the instant Cr. Revision No. 753 of 2023.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of 94 days in filing the Cr. Revision No. 753 of 2023. It is submitted that due to financial crunch, the petitioner could not file this Criminal Revision Application within time. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2024 and earlier the petitioner had also remained in custody since 02.05.2017 till 13.11.2017 and as such, delay of 94 days in preferring the instant Criminal Revision Application may be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the State raised no serious objection.
5. Having gone through the averments made at para 4 to 8 of the instant Interlocutory Application and also considering the period of custody of the petitioner and taking lenient view, the delay of 94 days in preferring the instant Cr. Revision No. 753 of2023 is, hereby, condoned.
6. Thus, I.A. No. 6970 of 2024 stands allowed an
Delay in filing appeals may be excused under the Limitation Act when supported by justifiable reasons, and prolonged custody may warrant bail during pending revisions.
The court condoned a 212-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application based on the petitioner's financial hardship and ignorance of prior judgments, granting provisional bail during the appeal....
A court may grant bail considering the duration of custody, despite serious charges, when supported by comparable cases.
The court emphasized that delays due to incarceration can justify condoning application timing, especially amid disputes over complaint legitimacy.
The court condoned a significant delay in filing a revision application and granted bail based on the petitioner's lengthy custody and the circumstances of the case.
The court condoned a 588-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision under the Limitation Act due to the petitioner's custody and financial constraints, emphasizing leniency in such circumstances.
The court ruled that the applicant's delay of 1074 days in filing a revision petition was unjustified due to lack of sufficient cause, emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
