Dismissed¶50

Rajendra Ram v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Jan 2025CR. APP (SJ)/1877/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 1375 days; I.A. No. 01 of 2024; Section 14(A)(3) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989; 90-day limitation; 180-day outer limit; sufficient cause; cognizance order dated 15.02.2021; Trial No.220/2021; Civil Line P.S. Case No. 471/2019, Gaya; IPC sections 341, 323, 384, 385, 504, 506, 34; SC/ST Act s.3(1)(r); Satendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad HC Full Bench, ultra vires); Union of India v. Vishnu Behari Tiwari (SLP (Crl.) No. 544 of 2019 pending); Patna High Court; Justice Rajiv Roy; criminal appeal dismissed on 16-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court found force in the submission of the learned Special PP: the I.A. No. 01 of 2024 was cryptic and did not disclose how and when the appellants came to know of the order, nor what steps they took to immediately approach the Court. ¶48

Rajendra Ram Vs the State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A. No. 01 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 1375 days in filing the memo of appeal in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1877 of 2024 should be allowed. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The condonation application (I.A. No. 01 of 2024) for the inordinate delay of 1375 days in filing the appeal was rejected.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

¶48

Key takeaways

Since I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stood rejected, no relief could be granted and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1877 of 2024 was dismissed.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.), order dated 16-01-2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1877 of 2024 (arising from Civil Line P.S. Case No. 471/2019, Gaya): the appeal challenged the order dated 15.02.2021 of the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Gaya (Trial No.220/2021) taking cognizance under ss.341, 323, 384, 385, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and s.3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act against three appellants. I.A. No. 01 of 2024 sought condonation of a 1375-day delay in filing the memo of appeal. Invoking Section 14(A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — appeal within 90 days, extendable on sufficient cause but not beyond 180 days — and noting both periods had lapsed (approximately 15.05.2021 and 14.08.2021), the Court held the application cryptic: it did not record how or when the appellants learnt of the order or the steps taken to approach the Court. Reliance by appellants' counsel on the Allahabad High Court Full Bench ruling in Satendra v. State of U.P. (Cr. Misc. No. 38755 of 2017) declaring s.14(A)(3) ultra vires — with SLP (Crl.) No. 544 of 2019 (Union of India v. Vishnu Behari Tiwari) stated to be pending in the Supreme Court — did not alter the result. Condonation rejected; appeal dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1877 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2019 Thana- CIVIL LINE District- Gaya

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Rajendra Ram Son Of Late Banke Bihari Ram Resident Of Village - Chouri, Sukhdewan Bigha, P.S. - Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad

¶5

Ajay Singh Son Of Late Ramswarup Singh Resident Of Village - Nadaura, P.S. - Gurua, District - Gaya

¶6

Raj Kishore Yadav Son Of Late Ram Vinod Yadav Resident Of Village - Mundera, P.S. - Konch, District - Gaya

¶7

... ... Appellant/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Bihar

¶10

Kapildev Paswan Son Of Radhe Paswan Resident Of Village - Babhan Dih, Post - Darioura, P.S. - Aamas, District - Gaya

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, APP ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶14

5 16-01-2025

¶15

I.A. No. 01 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal No.1877 of 2024 (SJ)

¶16

The I.A. No. 01 or 2024 has been filed for condonation

¶17

of delay of 1375 days in filing of the memo of appeal.

¶18

Heard the parties.

¶19

The present appeal has been filed for grant of following relief:-

¶20

That this memo of appeal is directed against order dated 15/02/2021 passed in Civil Line P.S. Case No. 471/2019 registered u/s 341, 323, 385, 384 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act Trial No.220/2021 passed by Learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Court, Gaya whereby and where under the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1877 of 2024(5) dt.16-01-2025 2/5

¶22

Learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence U/S 341, 323, 384, 385, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and section 3 (1)(r) of S.C. /S.T. Act, against the appellants.

¶23

The facts of the case is/are as follows:-

¶24

(i) the F.I.R. was lodged by Gaya Civil Line P.S. Case No. 132 of 2019 under different sections of the I.P.C. and 3(i)(r) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants Rajendra Ram, Ajay Singh and Raj Kishore Yadav amongst other.

¶25

(ii) the Police investigated the matter and submitted final form on 28.12.2019;

¶26

(iii) the matter was taken up by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya on 15.02.2021 and having gone through the case diary and the documents on record prima facie found that the case is made out against the appellant and accordingly cognizance was taken against the three appellants.

¶27

As stated, the order was passed on 15.02.2021.

¶28

As per the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 (henceforth for short ‘the 1989 Act’), 14(A) deals with the appeals and read as follows:-

¶29

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a

¶30

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1877 of 2024(5) dt.16-01-2025 3/5

¶31

Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.

¶32

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

¶33

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:

¶34

Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of ninety days:

¶35

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days.

¶36

(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.

¶37

The 90 days period thus came to end around 15.05.2021 and even the extended time in which the Court can entertain an appeal on sufficient cause came to an end around on

¶38

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1877 of 2024(5) dt.16-01-2025 4/5

¶39

14.08.2021.

¶40

The case of the appellants is/are that they preferred Cr. Misc. No. 30330 of 2023 (Quashing) which was withdrawn on 30.01.2024 as by that time, a Division Bench order had come in Cr. Appeal No. 4792 of 2018 on 09.08.2023.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that in that background, the condonation as the I.A. No. 01 of 2024 be allowed.

¶42

Learned Special PP representing the State opposes the prayer submitting that the wordings of the 1989 Act is clear, the period for filing appeal is 90 days and the extended period of further 90 days is only when the appellant makes out a valid reason for which they failed to approach the Court, no such valid reason is on record.

¶43

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in Satendra and Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh ( Cr. Misc. No. 38755 of 2017 ) the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court had declared the 14(A)(3) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 ultra vires.

¶44

Learned Special PP on the other hand submits that SLP (Crl. No. 544 of 2019) ( Union of India vs. Vishnu Behari

¶45

Tiwari ) is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that even otherwise there is vague statements in the

¶46

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1877 of 2024(5) dt.16-01-2025 5/5

¶47

Interlocutory Application and delay has not been properly explained.

¶48

Having gone through the facts of the case and the materials on record as also the submissions put forward by the parties, this Court finds force in the submission of learned Special PP. A cryptic I.A. No. 01 of 2024 has been filed in which the appellants have recorded that once they came to know about the order, it was challenged before the Patna High Court. How and when they came to know about the orders and what steps they took to immediately approach the Court is/are not available in the petition. There is inordinate delay of 1375 days in filing the appeal. In that background, the same is rejected.

¶49

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1877 of 2024

¶50

In view of the fact that the I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands rejected, no relief can be granted. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶51

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶52

vinayak/-

¶53

U T

Rajendra Ram v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Ram v. the State of Bihar

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

Atul Kumar @ Atul Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra

Ram Ekwal Sahani Vs the State of Bihar

Gopal Dixit Vs The State of Bihar

Gopal Prasad Yadav @ Gopal Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Mahanth Ram Prakash Das Vs The State Of Bihar

Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Singh Vs The State of Bihar