IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3869 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2024 Thana- DURGAWATI District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

======================================================

Mangesh S/O Late Dharmpal Singh @ Late Dharampal @ Late Dharmpal Village- Jeetpura, P.S.- Bardara, Distt.- Charkhi, Dadri, Haryana ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

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

4 19-02-2026 In re: I.A. No 1 of 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

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

3. The office has reported the delay of 401 days in filing the instant criminal appeal against conviction.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is a resident of Haryana and due to financial crisis, the family members of the appellant could not come to Bihar to file an appeal against the conviction of the appellant. Hence, delay has been caused in filing the instant criminal appeal which is not deliberate but due to bonafide reasons.

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 delay condonation application

6. Here, it would be apposite to discuss the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of limitation, which are as under:-

(i) In the matter of Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 382 (2),the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed inter-alia that where the appellant furnishes reasons for delay in filing an appeal, the court would not dismiss the appeal as time-

barred without examining the reasons for the delay.

(ii) Further in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 528, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an offender who has been convicted is entitled to avail the right of appeal which is provided for under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Right of Appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of Article 21 is also a Fundamental Right.

(iii) Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Singh Banzara Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 18045/2024 considering and relying upon both the aforementioned judgment condoned the delay of 1637 days in filing the Criminal Appeal against conviction.

7. In view of the above noted judgments, 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 is inclined to entertain this Interlocutory Application of the appellant with liberal approach, in exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

8. The cause shown in the instant Interlocutory Application is sufficient to condone the delay.

9. Accordingly, delay in filing the aforesaid Criminal Appeal against conviction is hereby condoned.

10.