Md. Humaidullah @ Humaidullah vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 307 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Humaidullah @ Humaidullah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                  [2026:JHHC:1399]


      IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. Rev. No. 749 of 2025
      Md. Humaidullah @ Humaidullah, aged about 28
      years, son of Md. Amanudullah @ Amanulah
      Kasmee, resident of Village Sons, P.O. Sons, P.S.
      Chanho, Dist. Ranchi.
           Presently residing at Nagarutari, P.O. & P.S.
      Nagarutari, Dist. Garhwa.
                                                       .....   ...   Petitioner
                                  Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. Hasmati Khatoon, wife of Md. Humaidullah @
      Humaidullah,
      3. Md. Farhan, son of Humaidullah Md. @
      Humaidullah,
           Both are presently residing at Village Itke, P.O. &
      P.S. Balumath, Dist. Latehar.
                                                       .....   ...   Opposite Parties
                               --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P.

------

05/ 19.01.2026 I.A. No. 9768 of 2025 has been filed for condoning the delay of 703 days in preferring this petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner happened to be the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and in preparation for filing the present petition, the said delay has occurred and in view of that he submits that the delay may kindly be condoned.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that there is no plausible explanation of condoning the delay of

703 days in filing the present petition.

4. In the aforesaid I.A., averments have been made for condoning the delay and in para-7 thereof, it has been disclosed that in

arranging all the certified copies of the judgment and other documents,

[2026:JHHC:1399]

the said delay has occurred and apart from that there is no explanation and further it has been pointed out that the petitioner is trying to settle the dispute with O.P. No. 2.

5. There is delay of 703 days and if the settlement was failed, the petitioner was required to file the revision petition immediately.

There is in-ordinate delay of 703 days in filing the revision petition, for that no substantial explanation is made in the IA. As such, there is no reason to condone the delay of 703 days, in view of that the prayer

made in the aforesaid I.A. is rejected. Consequently, this revision petition stands dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-19.01.2026 Amitesh/-