IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5589 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2020 Thana- SC/ST District- Araria ====================================================== 1. Saroj Yadav @ Saroj Kumar S/O Surya Narayan Yadav Resident of village- Posdaha ward no 05, Police Station- Narpatganj, District- Araria 2. Naresh Yadav S/O Chhutaru Yadav Resident of village- Posdaha ward no 05, Police Station- Narpatganj, District- Araria 3. Arvind Yadav S/O Sadanand Yadav Resident of village- Panjarkatta ward no 03, Police Station- Narpatganj, District- Araria ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Kusum Lal Sada S/O Late Sukhdeo Sada Resident of village- Posdaha ward no 07, Police Station- Narpatganj, District- Araria ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 04-02-2025 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred:- For condonation of delay of 918 days in filing of the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 5589 of 2024 against the impugned order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Araria in Special (SC/ST) Case No.21 of 2020 arising out of Araria SC/ST Police Station Case No. 12 of 2020. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 3. The present Interlocutory Application has been preferred for condoning the delay of 918 days in filing the appeal. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5589 of 2024(3) dt.04-02-2025 2/2 4. The only reason that has been given is that the appellants are illiterate and on ill advice of the learned counsel at Araria, the delay occurred. 5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that neither the name of the lawyer nor the advice that was given stands incorporated in the petition, in that background, the delay of 918 days should not be condoned. 6. Having heard the parties and perusing the record, the submissions of the learned APP seems to be justified. The order is of 02.09.2020. The only ground has been incorporated in one paragraph that due to ill advice of learned counsel at Araria without specifying his name or the advice, a prayer of delay of inordinate delay of 918 days cannot be allowed. The same as such needs dismissal. 7. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands dismissed. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 5589 of 2024 8. In view of the fact that the I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands rejected, consequently, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 5589 of 2024 also fails. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T