Dismissed¶40

Sachin Kumar Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Feb 2026Cr.A(SJ)/893/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; Section 14-A Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act; S.C/S.T Act 180-day limitation; anticipatory bail rejected; sufficient cause; 309 days delay; Basawaraj (2013) 14 SCC 81 para-15; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612; Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260; Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92; Shivamma 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 para-261; Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge Deoghar; Sachin Kumar Pandit; Munna Besra; Jharkhand High Court; Sanjay Prasad, J.; I.A. No. 14042 of 2025 rejected; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The parties must explain the delay for each and every date, and delay cannot be explained in a casual manner. ¶21

Sachin Kumar Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 309 days in filing the Criminal Appeal (challenging the rejection of the appellant's anticipatory bail) should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for want of sufficient cause.

¶12

Court's answer

The parties must explain the delay for each and every date, and delay cannot be explained in a casual manner.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 309 days in filing the Criminal Appeal has not been satisfactorily explained.

¶37

Key takeaways

Delay cannot be condoned casually; the party must show sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the Criminal Appeal, and no such ground was shown in this case.ratio¶38
On the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay of 309 days in filing the Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, for grant of anticipatory bail, cannot be condoned.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sanjay Prasad, J.), Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 893 of 2025, decided 09.02.2026: I.A. No. 14042 of 2025, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 309-day delay in filing a Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act (statutory limitation period 180 days under the S.C/S.T Act) against rejection of the appellant's anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Deoghar on 17.08.2024, is rejected. The appellant's explanation — that he was the sole earning member and his parents were unwell — was found vague and unsupported by any medical certificate. Relying on Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 (para-15), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 (para-5) and Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. v. Karnataka Housing Board and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 (para-261), the Court held that delay must be explained for each and every date and cannot be condoned casually absent sufficient cause. Consequently, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 893 of 2025 was dismissed.

¶1

2026:JHHC:3574

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 893 of 2025

¶4

Sachin Kumar Pandit, aged about 38 years, son of Pradip Kumar Pandit, resident of vill-Lokpur, P.O-Kukraha, P.S-Chitra, Dist…… Deoghar Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.Munna Besra, Son of Kameshwar Besra, resident of VillJamuasol, P.O-Jhagrahi, P.S-Sarath, Sub-Div-Madhupur, Dist….…. Deoghar Respondents

¶8

---------

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶10

---------- For the Appellant : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP -----------

¶11

Oral Order in Court 06/Dated:09^th February, 2026 I.A. No.14042 of 2025

¶12

I.A. No.14042 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 309 days in filing this Criminal Appeal.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is a sole earner of his family member and he was not able to contact his counsel due to low income. It is submitted that his father and mother are suffering from health ailments and they could not keep an eye on the Court proceeding. However, the appellant contacted the learned counsel and arranged some money and hence there is delay in filing this appeal and hence the delay of 309 days in filing this Criminal Appeal may be condoned.

¶14

Learned APP has opposed the prayer.

¶15

It transpires that as per the provision of S.C/S.T Act the Criminal Appeal was to be filed within 180 days, however, the instant appeal has been filed after delay of 309 days.

¶16

It further appears that there is no proper explanation and they have given vague statement that he is the only earning member of

¶17

¶18

2026:JHHC:3574

¶19

family and his father and mother are ill and there is no medical certificate of his treatment.

¶20

This Court finds that the learned Additional Sessions JudgeI-cum- Special Judge, Deoghar has rejected the anticipatory bail of the appellant on 17.08.2024 but he has filed this appeal on 23.09.2025 after much delay and there is no proper explanation.

¶21

It is well settled from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the parties has to explain the delay for each and every date and delay cannot be explained in casual manner.

¶22

It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Basawaraj and Another Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 at para-15, as follows:-

¶23

“ Para - 15:- The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

¶24

It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ramkumar Choudhary reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 at para-5, as follows:-

¶25

“ Para-5:- The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which

¶26

¶27

2026:JHHC:3574

¶28

means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260) , it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram (2023 SCC OnLine SC 92) wherein, it was held as follows:

¶29

“13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:

¶30

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature. ”

¶31

14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation application of the present appellant. ”

¶32

Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression „sufficient cause‟ cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.”

¶33

It has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Versus Karnataka Housing Board and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 at para-261, as follows:-

¶34

¶35

2026:JHHC:3574

¶36

“Para - 261:- Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.”

¶37

It is evident that instant Criminal Appeal has been filed after delay of 309 days and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained.

¶38

Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it is clear that delay cannot be condoned casually and party has to show sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the Criminal Appeal. However, the same has not been shown in this case.

¶39

Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is of the view that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay of 309 days in filing the Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be condoned. 14. Accordingly, I.A. No. 14042 of 2025 is, hereby, rejected.

¶40

Consequently, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.893 of 2025 is also, hereby, dismissed.

¶41

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶42

Dated: 09.02.2026 Saket/-

¶43

Sachin Kumar Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandip Yadav Alias Sandeep Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kapildev Yadav Alias Kapildeo Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Taushik Ansari MD Tusik Ansari Allias MD Tausik Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Anand Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand