IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.766 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== 1. Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Yadav S/o- Rajendra Yadav Resident of Madachak P.S- Amarpur, Dist- Banka 2. Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar S/o- Dablu Yadav Resident of Madachak P.S- Amarpur, Dist- Banka 3. Akshay Kumar S/o- Sikandar Yadav Resident of Madachak P.S- Amarpur, Dist- Banka 4. Ravi Kumar S/o- Kapil Yadav Resident of Madachak P.S- Amarpur, Dist- Banka 5. Ram Kumar S/o- Bahadur Yadav Resident of Madachak P.S- Amarpur, Dist- Banka 6. Chhotu Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar S/o- Sikandar Yadav Resident of Madachak P.S- Amarpur, Dist- Banka ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Yugraj Rajak S/o- Nandu Rajak Resident of Madachak P.S- Amarpur, Dist- Banka ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 08-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna. 2. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, at the outset, submits that from perusal of the limitation application, it would manifest that there is a delay of 227 days in filing the instant appeal. It is further submitted that from Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.766 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026 2/2 perusal of the grounds taken in the limitation application seeking condonation of the delay it would manifest no cogent reason has been assigned for approaching the Court at a belated stage, rather at para 4, it has been pleaded that appellants have no knowledge about limitation period for filing the appeal seeking anticipatory bail, it is thus submitted that the grounds taken in the limitation application does not inspire confidence. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is not in a position to rebut the said submissions of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. Accordingly, the limitation application as well as the appeal is dimissed. vikram/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T