Banshidhar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3714 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-436 Year-2010 Thana- AGRER District- Rohtas ====================================================== BANSHIDHAR PRASAD Son of Feku Prasad R/o Village- Turki, P.O.- Muradabad, P.S.- Agrer, District- Rohtas (Bihar). ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sudarshan Prasad Son of Feku Prasad Resident of Village- Baradih, P.O.- Muradabad, P.S.- Agrer, District- Rohtas (Bihar). 3.
Sona Devi Wife of Sudarshan Prasad Resident of Village- Baradih, P.O.- Muradabad, P.S.- Agrer, District- Rohtas (Bihar). ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Ful Man Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, Spl. P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-11-2025 I.A. No. 01 of 2019 Heard the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the acquittal of the respondent-accused.
3. No sufficient ground has been shown by the appellant for condonation of delay.
4. In these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed CR. APP. (SJ) No. 3714 of 2019
5. The appellant has submitted that he was not informed by the Public Prosecutor about the acquittal of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3714 of 2019(5) dt.11-11-2025 2/2 accused persons and, therefore, could not file the appeal within the prescribed period.
6. However, it is not the duty of the Public Prosecutor to inform the informant about the outcome of the case. It was for the informant to remain vigilant and to make necessary enquiries regarding the progress and result of the case. If the informant was genuinely interested in the result of the trial, he ought to have appeared before the court and assisted the A.P.P. during the proceedings.
7. Merely because the accused persons have been acquitted, the present appeal cannot be entertained after a delay of four months.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) Neha/- U T