Jharkhand High Court
Anand Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 382 of 2022
------
Anand Prasad ......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ramlal Sao ......Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Spl.P.P
For the O.P No.2 : Ms. Shreya Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No. 18/ Dated: 24.04.2025
Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State are also present. However,
Ms. Shreya Sinha, has appeared through Video Conferencing on
behalf of the O.P No.2. There is no complaint of audio and video
quality.
2. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 is not in a position to
argue the case through Video Conferencing and is not arguing
properly.
3. I.A No. 4621 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the
delay of 668 days in filing this Criminal Revision Application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is a poor person and he was in jail also and as such,
there is delay of 668 days. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is also desirous of settlement with the O.P No.2 and has
deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- before this Court also by filing
supplementary affidavit. However, the O.P No. 2 has refused to
accept the same and O.P No. 2 is contesting the case and hence,
the delay of 668 days in filing this Criminal Revision Application
may be condoned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contention has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of
Nihali Devi versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
Another reported in (2012) 12 SCC 325 at Para-4.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State raised no
objection.
7. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 has opposed the
submission and submitted that the O.P No. 2 will contest the case
on merit and the O.P No.2 should be paid Rs. 1,80,000/- along
with 10% interest per annum.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the both the sides and
from going through the records and Interlocutory Application, it
appears that there is delay of 668 days in filing this Criminal
Revision Application.
9. It appears that the petitioner was granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 30.08.2022 and was in custody since
12.07.2022 with the condition that he may be deposited
Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of demand draft in the name of O.P No.2
and shall comply with by the learned counsel for the petitioner by
depositing the said demand draft of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 24.08.2022
by filing supplementary affidavit.
10. Though, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by
the petitioner but considering the fact that the matter is to be
contested by the O.P No. 2 and the petitioner had remained in
custody also and also in the light of law laid in the case of Nihali
Devi versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 325, the delay of 668 days in filing this
Criminal Revision Application is, hereby, condoned.
11. Thus, I.A No. 4621 of 2022 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
12. Put up this case on 17th June 2025 under the heading "For
Admission".
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Avinash/
