2026:JHHC:17464-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 847 of 2025 With I.A. No. 17330 of 2025 with I.A. No. 1382 of 2026 With I.A. No. 3277 of 2026 With I.A. No. 16351 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Police Headquarters, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Police Headquarters, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Police Headquarters, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Rajarani Kothi, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District Ranchi. 6. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Rajarani Kothi, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District Ranchi. 7. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-I, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. … … … Appellants Versus 1. Krishna Bahadur Pariyar, S/o- Late Hari Bahadur, Resident of Block-3, Quarter No. 2, Nepal House, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 2. Rajesh Kumar Rana, Son of Shree Sher Bahadur Rana, Resident of D/8, Munda Quarters, Nepal House, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 3. Yam Bahadur Manjhi, Son of-Nirman Manjhi, Resident of Block-11, Quarter No. K/4, Nepal House, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 4. Sunil Bahadur, Son of-Hasta Bahadur, Resident of Antu Chowk, Dutta Village Road, Morabadi, P.O.-G.P.Ο., P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. … … … Respondents 2026:JHHC:17464-DB -2- --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C.-IV For the Respondents: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Raju Koiri, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 16.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 17330 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 685 days in filing the appeal against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.12.2023 disposing of W.P.(S) No. 3331 of 2023. 3. Mr Rahul Kamlesh, learned A.C. to S.C.-IV for the appellants- State points out that the appellants had filed a review petition against the impugned order and after that was rejected on 13.10.2025, this appeal is filed on 04.12.2025. He submitted that the appellants were bonafide in pursuing the review petition and marginal delay of two months after the disposal of the review petition has been sufficiently explained. Accordingly, he submitted that this delay may be condoned. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents (original petitioners) opposes the condonation of the delay. He points out that there was a delay of almost 19 months in filing the review petition itself which has not been explained. He further placed on record an order dated 06.04.2026 by which the appellants-State has already complied with the directions contained in the impugned order without raising any protest or stating that such compliance was without prejudice. He submitted that for these reasons the interim application should be dismissed. 5. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 6. The record shows that the impugned order was made on 20.12.2023 and the review petition against the same was filed only on 25.07.2025 after a delay of almost 18 to 19 months. 2026:JHHC:17464-DB -3- 7. To our query, as to the cause of this inordinate delay, Mr Rahul Kamlesh for the State submitted that Laxman Tamang and others affected parties, who are not impleaded in W.P.(S) No. 3331 of 2023 filed L.P.A. No. 138 of 2026 along with the application for condonation of delay. Since in this proceeding, the State was already made the party, the State did not deem it immediately necessary to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 20.12.2023. 8. Assuming that the above explanation is correct, then, since they delay in filing Laxman Tamang’s appeal is already condoned and the appeal is pending wherein the State has been impleaded as a party, there was no necessity of the State even filing this appeal. Therefore, based upon the response to our query, we cannot hold that there is any sufficient cause shown for filing this appeal after delay of 685 days. 9. As noted earlier, the explanation for filing the review petition almost 18 to 19 months beyond the prescribed period of limitation cannot be accepted as constituting some sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing this Letters Patent Appeal. In all probabilities, the State would be interested in keeping the appeals pending so that it could avoid compliance by citing the pendency should any contempt petition be filed against the State. 10. That apart, the order dated 06.04.2026 issued by the State, reporting compliance with the directions contained in the impugned order, does not state that such compliance was without prejudice or under protest. This is an additional ground raised by the learned counsel for the original petitioners, and the same cannot be summarily rejected, given the history of this matter. 11. Since no sufficient cause is shown and the directions in the impugned order are already complied with without recording any protest 2026:JHHC:17464-DB -4- or stating that such compliance was without prejudice, we decline to condone the delay of 685 days in instituting this appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 17330 of 2025 is dismissed. 12. As a result of the dismissal of I.A. No. 17330 of 2025, the accompanying appeal and I.As. therein will not survive and are disposed of. However, we clarify that since the disposal of the appeal is not on merits, the State would have the liberty of raising all its contentions in the appeal instituted by Laxman Tamang and others. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 16, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 20.06.2026