Patna High Court
Phucho YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that the 262‑day delay in filing the appeal memo could not be condoned, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Summary
The appellants Phucho Yadav and Bharat Yadav filed a criminal appeal against the State of Bihar and Sri Krishna Paswan. The Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that the memorandum of appeal was filed 262 days after the order and that the limitation petition was cryptic, offering no reason for the delay. The appellants’ counsel could not rebut this submission. The court examined the limitation petition and found it insufficient to justify condoning the delay. Accordingly, the court dismissed the limitation petition and, as a result, dismissed the appeal, emphasizing strict compliance with limitation periods in criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the 262‑day delay in filing the memorandum of appeal can be condoned under the limitation provisions?
Subjects
- limitation
- criminal appeal
- condonation of delay
- procedural law
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.360 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2018 Thana- SC/ST District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Phucho Yadav S/o- Late Dukho Yadav Resident of village- Bhavanandpur
P.S- Balia, Dist- Begusarai
2. Bharat Yadav S/o- Phucho Yadav Resident of village- Bhavanandpur P.S-
Balia, Dist- Begusarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sri Krishna Paswan @ Kisho Paswan S/o- Desho Paswan Resident of
village- Bhavanandpur P.S- Balia, Dist- Begusarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinod Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari No. 1, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 28-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, at the outset,
submits that there is delay of 262 days in filing the memo of
appeal and from perusal of the limitation petition, it would
manifest that the same is cryptic and does not record the reason
for the delay in approaching the Court for filing the memo of
appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants are not in a position to rebut the submission of the
learned Special Public Prosecutor.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.360 of 2025(4) dt.28-01-2026
2/2
Special Public Prosecutor, the Court is not inclined to condone
the delay of 262 days in filing the memo of appeal for reasons
mentioned in the limitation petition.
5. The limitation petition is, thus, dismissed.
6. In consequence whereof, the appeal also stands
dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.