Sakla Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:21345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No. 64 of 2025

Sakla Hembram, aged about 40 years, son of Gopal Hembram, resident of Barakanjia, P.O. & P.S. Badakanjiya District East Singhbhum, working as Executive Engineer Electrical (C&R), ESC, Jamshedpur

¶4

…....... Appellant(s)

¶5

Vrs.

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.Ajay Agarwal, son of Lallu Ram Agarwal, resident of Sundarnagar, P.O. & P.S. Sundarnagar, District East Singhbhum

¶8

........ Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the JUVNL : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Sr. S.C. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Kaushlesh, Advocate

¶10

I.A. No. 12076 of 2025

¶11

04/20.07.2026 The instant interlocutory application has been preferred for condonation of delay of 702 days in preferring the instant acquittal appeal. Para 3 to 7 of the instant interlocutory application are quoted hereunder:

¶12

3. “That the appellant states that after obtaining approval from various inter-governmental departments, the appellants decided to file the present appeal which resulted in delaying the filing of the present appeal.

¶13

4. That thereafter the appellant filed for procuring the Certified Copy of the impugned judgment on 03.08.2023 and the same was procured on 10.08.2023.

¶14

5. That the appellant further states that even after procuring the Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant could not file the present appeal as the records of the pertaining case has to be reconstructed as it was not readily available with the department and therefore there was delay in filing this appeal.

¶15

6. That because of the aforementioned situation and circumstances there was a delay of 702 days in preferring the present application and the delay was

¶16

Acquittal Appeal No.64 of 2025

1

2026:JHHC:21345

unintentional.

7. That the petitioner has a good case in the instant Acquittal Appeal and there is every chance of success, and therefore, if the unintentional delay in filing this appeal is not condoned, the appellant will be highly prejudiced.”

¶21

Thus, no reasonable ground has been stated in the instant interlocutory application, whatsoever, for condonation of delay in preferring the acquittal appeal.

¶22

Accordingly, I.A. No. 12076 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶23

Acquittal Appeal No. 64 of 2025

¶24

Consequently, the present acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, which has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (Electricity), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 1560 of 2009 arising out of Parsudih (Sundernagar) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned court below has acquitted the respondent no.2from the charges levelled against him.

¶25

Before parting with the order, it is hereby observed that this Court has gone through the impugned judgment also and finds that the prosecution has utterly failed in producing the evidence before the Court.

¶26

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶27

20.07.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded //2026

¶28

Acquittal Appeal No.64 of 2025

¶29

2

Sakla Hembram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakla Hembram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awadhesh Singh Alias Avdesh Kumar Alias Prashant Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ghanshyam Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kumari Ratnakar @ Ratnakar Kumari Alias Ratnakar Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through Anti -Corruption Bureau

Ram Briksh Chouhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand