1 ( 2026:JHHC:6321-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 377 of 2025 With I.A. No. 5772 of 2025 Manoj Rai, aged about 46 years, son of Late Binta Lal Rai, resident of J.A.P.-I, P.O.& P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi. …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Director General cum I.G. of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, office at Police House, near Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, office at Raja Rani Kothi, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi. 4. Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-I, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV ----- Order No. 02 Dated : 10.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 5772 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 707 days in instituting this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. We have perused this I.A., and we find that the only reason given for the delay is that “on account of law and order duty and lack of proper knowledge of the Appellant/Petitioner regarding judicial proceeding and procedure, 707 days delay occurred in filing this Letters Patent Appeal before this Court.” 4. In paragraph-9, the appellant has pleaded that he has a good case on merit and there is every chance of success. 5. The above reasons do not, in any manner, constitute sufficient cause to explain inordinate delay of 707 days. 2 6. Besides, we note that this is a case where the appellant, who was a driver of a police jeep, knocked down two pedestrians, out of which one pedestrian died. Initially, penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the appellant. Upon remand, however, this penalty was reduced to withholding of one increment without any cumulative effect. This penalty is equivalent to only two black marks. 7. In any event, without going into these aspects, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown to explain this inordinate delay of 707 days. Accordingly, we dismiss the I.A., seeking condonation of delay. 8. As a consequence, the accompanying appeal also stands dismissed. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 10, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 11.03.2026