Patna High Court
Bhola Yadav @ Bhola RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The modification petition is dismissed due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause.
Summary
The petitioner, Bhola Yadav, filed a modification petition seeking an extension of the period of surrender ordered on 14-02-2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.73535 of 2018. The State opposed, arguing that the petition was filed six years after the original order, which is an inordinate delay. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay. The Court considered the lapse of six years and the lack of satisfactory explanation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the modification petition. The order was pronounced by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh on 24-04-2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a modification petition filed six years after the original order can be entertained without sufficient cause for delay
Subjects
- modification of order
- delay
- criminal miscellaneous
- surrender period
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29054 of 2026
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73535 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2018 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Bhola Yadav @ Bhola Ray S/O Late Ranjit Ray R/O Vill.- Didarganj, P.S.-
Didarganj, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. This modification petition has been filed for
modification of order dated 14.02.2020, passed in Cr. Misc. No.
73535 of 2018 to the extent of extension of period of surrender.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the State opposed
the modification petition and submitted that this petition has
been moved after the inordinate lapse of six years of passing of
said order. Learned counsel submits that to modify an order,
petitioner should come to the Court in time.
4. Considering the fact that this modification petition
has been filed after delay of six years and petitioner has not
satisfied the Court that petitioner was prevented from sufficient
cause in preferring this modification petition within time.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29054 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/2
5. Accordingly, this modification petition is
dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…