Gayatri Devi @ Gayatri Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1713 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-415 Year-2022 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.
Gayatri Devi @ Gayatri Kumari W/O Raju Mandal @ Raju Kumar Mandal Resident of Baluia Kaliya Ganj, P.S-Palasi, District-Araria 2.
Uday Kumar @ Udaya Nand Mandal Son of Late Punit Mandal R/o Chainpur, P.S. Terhagacha, District-Kishanganj 3.
Subhodh Kumar @ Subodh Kumar Vishwas Son of Upendra Biswash R/o. Ram Ratanji Nagar Rambagh, P.S.- Sadar, District - Purnea. 4.
Dhiraj Thakur @ Dheeraj Kumar Thakur Son of Mangan Thakur R/o. Kumhari,P.S. Kadawa, District Katihar, present residing at Professor Colony Rambagh, P.S.- Sadar, District- Purnea 5.
Raju Mandal @ Raju Kumar Mandal Son of Satyanarayan Mandal Resident of Balua Kaliya Ganj, P.S.- Palasi, District-Araria ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Patna 2.
Mangala Kumari @ Mangala Devi Wife of Late Ram Ratan Paswan Resident of Village - Ram Ratanji Nagar Rambagh, P.S.- Sadar Purnea, District- Purnia ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-06-2025 I.A. No. 1 of 2025 The interlocutory application 1 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 616 days in preferring the memo of appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants, while explaining the delay of 616 days in preferring this appeal, has submitted that initially, the appellants filed a petition for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1713 of 2025(3) dt.23-06-2025 2/2 quashing the impugned order, which was also barred by limitation, and when that petition was dismissed, the present appeal was filed.
3. The delay in preferring this appeal has not satisfactorily been explained.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 stands rejected and consequently, this appeal is also dismissed.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T