Ashraf @ Ashraf Darji @ Md. Ashraf Darji Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Mandal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶19

3 10-01-2025

¶20

This is an application for restoration of Cr. Revision

¶21

782 of 2019. The application was taken up for hearing previously on 13^th December 2024, on which date, it was found that the application was hopelessly barred by limitation by almost one year. The petitioners were directed to file an application for condonation of delay. Such application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating, inter alia , that they were not present in Patna during the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 86690 of 2024(3) dt.10-01-2025 2/3

¶23

aforesaid period and, therefore, they could not take step for restoration of the revisional application.

¶24

I have perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for restoration of the revisional application as well as the impugned order. By passing the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revisional application filed by the petitioners challenging the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners filed second revision under the provision of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC challenging the said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Criminal Revision No. 913 of 2018.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is ascertained that the petitioners have not been able to establish sufficient ground which prevented them to file the application for restoration within time.

¶26

Moreover, the case against the petitioners were instituted on 18^th August 2018 since, then they successfully dragged and delayed the trial of the case.

¶27

In view of such circumstances, I am not inclined to condone the delay and restore the revisional application. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 86690 of 2024(3) dt.10-01-2025 3/3

¶29

Act is rejected.

¶30

In view of rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, there is no reason to restore the application for revision. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below within three weeks from the date of this order, failing which the learned S.D.J.M., Benipatti is at liberty to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners to compel their appearance. The learned S.D.J.M. Benipatti is further directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.

¶31

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶32

Suraj Dubey/-

¶33

U T

Ashraf @ Ashraf Darji @ Md. Ashraf Darji v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf @ Ashraf Darji @ Md. Ashraf Darji v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Taha Hasan Vs the Union of India through Enforcement Directorate, Patna Regional Office

Hena Jha Vs The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Pankaj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Sunil Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Suchit Kumar @ Bakhori Vs The State of Bihar