IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.40 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2022 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai ======================================================

1. MD AFROZ @ MD. AFROZ ALAM S/O MD. MUSTAQ @ MD.

MUSTAQUE R/o vill - Papraur, ward no. 13, Tola- Dauli, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai

2. Md. Mustaq @ Md. Mustaque S/o Late Nizam @ Md. Nezamuddin R/o vill - Papraur, ward no. 13, Tola- Dauli, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai

3. Md. Asfaq @ Md. Ashfaque Ali S/o Late Nizam @ Md. Nezamuddin R/o vill - Papraur, ward no. 13, Tola- Dauli, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. MD. ASIF S/O LATE MD. NASEEM @ MD. NASEEMUDDIN R/o vill -

Papraur, P.S.- Barauni Refinary, Distt.- Begusarai ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Abha Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 25-02-2026 In Re:- I.A. No. 1 of 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellants with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the instant Criminal Appeal against his conviction.

3.Office has reported the delay of 12 days in filing this Criminal Appeal.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that non filing of this criminal appeal within limitation period was not deliberate but due to bonafide reasons mentioned in the instant application. Therefore, in the interest of justice delay in filing the instant criminal appeal against conviction of the appellant is liable to be condoned.

5.The State has not filed any objection against the instant application.

6.It is well settled that the right to appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ should therefore be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented process approach rather than the technical detention of sufficient case for explaining everyday’s delay. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. When substantial justice and technical consideration pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Hence this Court in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 382 (2), Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 528 and Mahesh Singh Banzara Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 18045/2024 is inclined to entertain this Interlocutory Application of the appellants with liberal approach, in exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

7.The cause shown in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.

8.Accordingly, delay in filing of the aforesaid Criminal Appeal is hereby condoned.

9.The present Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 1 of

2026) stands allowed.

Order on memo of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 40 of 2026

10. Let this appeal be listed under appropriate heading on

26.03.2026.

(Sanjay Kumar Singh , J)

Raj Ranjan/-

U