2026:JHHC:3574 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 893 of 2025 Sachin Kumar Pandit, aged about 38 years, son of Pradip Kumar Pandit, resident of vill-Lokpur, P.O-Kukraha, P.S-Chitra, Dist- Deoghar …… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Munna Besra, Son of Kameshwar Besra, resident of Vill- Jamuasol, P.O-Jhagrahi, P.S-Sarath, Sub-Div-Madhupur, Dist- Deoghar ….…. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP ----------- Oral Order in Court 06/Dated:09th February, 2026 I.A. No.14042 of 2025 I.A. No.14042 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 309 days in filing this Criminal Appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is a sole earner of his family member and he was not able to contact his counsel due to low income. It is submitted that his father and mother are suffering from health ailments and they could not keep an eye on the Court proceeding. However, the appellant contacted the learned counsel and arranged some money and hence there is delay in filing this appeal and hence the delay of 309 days in filing this Criminal Appeal may be condoned. 3. Learned APP has opposed the prayer. 4. It transpires that as per the provision of S.C/S.T Act the Criminal Appeal was to be filed within 180 days, however, the instant appeal has been filed after delay of 309 days. 5. It further appears that there is no proper explanation and they have given vague statement that he is the only earning member of 2026:JHHC:3574 2 family and his father and mother are ill and there is no medical certificate of his treatment. 6. This Court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I-cum- Special Judge, Deoghar has rejected the anticipatory bail of the appellant on 17.08.2024 but he has filed this appeal on 23.09.2025 after much delay and there is no proper explanation. 7. It is well settled from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the parties has to explain the delay for each and every date and delay cannot be explained in casual manner. 8. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Basawaraj and Another Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 at para-15, as follows:- “Para-15:- The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 9. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ramkumar Choudhary reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 at para-5, as follows:- “Para-5:- The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which 2026:JHHC:3574 3 means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260), it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram (2023 SCC OnLine SC 92) wherein, it was held as follows: “13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation application of the present appellant.” Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression „sufficient cause‟ cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.” 10. It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Versus Karnataka Housing Board and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 at para-261, as follows:- 2026:JHHC:3574 4 “Para-261:- Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.” 11. It is evident that instant Criminal Appeal has been filed after delay of 309 days and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 12. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it is clear that delay cannot be condoned casually and party has to show sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the Criminal Appeal. However, the same has not been shown in this case. 13. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is of the view that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay of 309 days in filing the Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be condoned. 14. Accordingly, I.A. No. 14042 of 2025 is, hereby, rejected. 15. Consequently, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.893 of 2025 is also, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 09.02.2026 Saket/-