The High Court of Jharkhand rejected an interlocutory application requesting condonation of a 654-day delay in filing an acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC due to lack of explanation for the procrastination by the Public Prosecutor.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:27329-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2024
State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, West … … Singhbhum Appellant
Versus
Kanhu Soren @ Karan … … Respondent ---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
--For the Appellant : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Special P.P. For the Respondent : Mr. N. K. Sahani, Advocate
8/11.09.2026 I. A. No. 3480 of 2024:
Heard Mr. B. N. Ojha, learned Special P.P. appearing for the appellant and Mr. N. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent.
This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 654 days in filing this acquittal appeal.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the opinion was given by the Public Prosecutor, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, the file was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and thereafter to the office of the Advocate General which after which memo of appeal was drafted and the present appeal has been filed.
Mr. N. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that though the judgment of acquittal was passed on 01.04.2021, but the Public Prosecutor, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa had written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa only on 04.11.2023 opining to prefer an appeal against the said judgment.
From the averments made in the instant application, it appears that the reasons for the delay have been given post the letter dated 04.11.2023 and there is no explanation with respect to the delay of two and half years in giving of the opinion by the learned Public Prosecutor to the Deputy Commissioner for filing an appeal. The judgment of acquittal
-2-
was passed on 01.04.2021 and the letter of Public Prosecutor was given on 04.11.2023 and in absence of there being any reason for such delay, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 654 days in preferring the appeal.
This interlocutory application stands rejected and consequently Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2024 also stands dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
11 September 2026 Uploaded R. Shekhar Cp 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 654 days in filing the acquittal appeal can be condoned.
Whether the acquittal appeal can be admitted after the delay.
State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa
Kanhu Soren @ Karan
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Arun Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
