Dismissed¶25

State v. Sundarmohan Bindhani

Orissa HC19 Sept 2025CRLLP/52/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal against acquittal refused — State v. Sundarmohan Bindhani, CRLLP No.52 of 2006 & I.A. No.26 of 2011 (Orissa HC, Cuttack, 19.09.2025, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.): 186-day delay in presenting application not condoned; acquittal of 22.07.2005 by J.M.F.C., Jagatsinghpur in 2(C)C.C. No.26 of 99 / T.R. No.578 of 2003 under S.3(A) R.P. (U.P) Act, 1966 (alleged theft of railway property) upheld as free from illegality; leave application dismissed on limitation and merits.

What did the court decide?

The grounds stated in the leave application were perused and found to have no substance. ¶24

State Vs Sundarmohan Bindhani — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.52 of 2006

¶2

State

¶3

..... Appellant

¶4

Represented By Adv. – Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Sundarmohan Bindhani

¶7

..... Respondent

¶8

Represented By Adv. -

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

19.09.2025

¶13

CRLLP No.52 of 2006 & I.A. No.26 of 2011

¶14

Order No.

¶15

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

The abovenoted Misc.case has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal before this Court.

¶17

On perusal of the stamp report it appears that there exist a delay of about186 days in presenting the present application.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

¶19

None appears for the Respondent- Opposite Party despite valid service of notice.

¶20

The abovenoted leave application has been filed seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.07.2005 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jagatsinghpur in 2(C)C.C. No.26 of 99 arising out of T.R. No.578 of 2003. The aforesaid 2(C)C.C. No.26 of 99 arises out of a T.R. filed under Section 3(A) of the R.P. (U.P) Act, 1966 for alleged theft of railway

¶21

Page 1 of 2.

¶22

property.

¶23

Initially the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.07.1999 alleging theft of railway property.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State prays for leave to prefer an appeal on the grounds stated in the leave application. Perused the grounds mentioned in the leave application and found that the same do not have any substance. Further, on a close scrutiny of the judgment of acquittal dated 22.07.2005, this Court observes that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality. Moreover, the present application is being taken up more than two decades after the judgment of acquittal was passed by the learned trial court. Even the delay of 186 days in preferring the present application has not been condoned as of now. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to the state the stage.

¶25