IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1196 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2021 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN District- Mad-

hubani ======================================================

Rajesh Mahto ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar and Others ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

3 05-01-2026 Re.: I.A. No. 1 of 2025 The present interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condoning the delay of 90 days which has taken place in filing the present appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of passing of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant was not present in the Court, however subsequently he came to know about passing of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, by which lesser sentence has been awarded to the respondent Nos.2 to 7, hence he came to the learned Civil Court, Madhubani and after inquiring about the matter from his counsel, he applied for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which was finally delivered to the appellant on 17.04.2025. The appellant had then obtained necessary documents which also consumed some time, whereafter he had come to Patna and approached the present counsel and after due consultation, the appeal was prepared and then the same has been filed, all of which consumed some time leading to a meager delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal. Thus, it is submitted that a sympathetic view be taken and the delay of 90 days which has taken place in filing the present appeal, be condoned.

3. The learned APP for the State has not opposed the prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the

4. We have perused the present petition and considered the submissions made by the appellant and find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing

5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 90 days, which has taken place in filing the present appeal, is condoned.

GAURAV S./-

U