Patna High Court - Orders
Binda Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 16 February, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2062 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-1993 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Binda Prasad, S/o Late Ramchandra Singh, Resident of Village-Bela Bigha,
P.S.- Arwal, District- Arwal, at present Resident of Friends Colony, Behind
Yamuna Complex, Ashiyana Nagar, P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Baleshwar Paswan, S/o Narayan Paswan Resident of Village-Akbarpur, P.S.-
Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
3. Sudhir Manjhee, S/o Rameshwar Manjhee, Resident of Village- Akbarpur,
P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
4. Rajdeo Malakar S/o- Pyare Malakar, Resident of Village-Akbarpur, P.S.-
Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
5. Sheo Kumar Paswan, S/o- Ramkhelawan Paswan, Resident of Village-
Rajwa, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
6. Bijendra Prasad, S/o- Dewan Singh @ Devan Ram, Resident of Village-
Bara Bigha, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
7. Sarjug Singh, S/o- Chamari Singh, Resident of Village- Jikha Khandha, P.S.-
Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
10 16-02-2026I.A. No.1 of 2019 The present interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of about eight years seven months and fourteen days in preferring the appeal.
2. The case is of year 1993, where respondent nos. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 2/12 2-7 alleged to enter into premises of informant, who was working as Circle Officer along with 300 unknown persons and prevented them to discharge their official duties and also assaulted them for which, Hilsa P.S. Case No.210/1993 was lodged on 13.08.1993 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 427, 353, 332, 427 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant being C.O. also alleged to give order to the bodyguards along with Block Development Officer, where ten rounds of firing was made for which a counter case was also lodged against the informant. It further appears that no prosecution witnesses were turned up for long 13 years, as charge in this matter was framed on 20.12.1997 after exhausting all process to secure their presence, therefore, the respondents/accused persons were acquitted by learned trial court vide its order dated 01.10.2010 under Section 232 of the CrPC.
3. Explaining the ground of delay, it is submitted that at no point of time the summons and non-bailable warrant as issued by the trial court was received by witnesses and, therefore, they could not be examined during trial Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 3/12 leading acquittal under Section 232 CrPC , which is bad in the eyes of law.
4. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing for appellant stated about proceedings chronologically and submitted that the case has been committed on 02.05.1994 to the court of Sessions Judge Nalanda and thereafter, learned Session Judge, Nalanda transferred the same to the court of learned Additional Session Judge-2nd, Hilsa for trial and record received on 08.06.1994 and order for issuance of summons against accused persons [respondents no. 2 to 7] has been passed and case was fixed for appearance of accused persons [respondents no. 2 to 7]. It is also submitted that till 26. 11. 1994 when accused [respondents no. 2 to 7] did not appeared in the court then on 9.12.1994 their bail bond has been cancelled and order for non-bailable warrant of arrest has been passed against accused [respondents no. 2 to 7] and was issued on 20.4.1995. He further stated that on 2.6.1995 five accused persons surrendered before the court and released on bail, similarly, on 30.6.1995 one accused Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 4/12 person appeared and released on bail and appearance of accused respondents no. 2 to 7 has been completed and case was fixed for charge. Thereafter, all accused [respondents nos. 2 to 7] started evading their appearance one by one by tricks accordingly again bail bond of accused persons [respondents no.2 to 7] has been cancelled on 28.5.1997 and order for warrant of arrest and process u/s-82 & 83 Cr. P. C. has been passed against accused persons [respondents no. 2 to 7] and again case was fixed for appearance. It is further stated that on 20.12.1997 all accused persons [respondents no.2 to 7] have been surrendered and released on bail after framing charge u/s-149, 353, 323, 427, 307 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act and further order for summon against prosecution witnesses have been passed fixing the case for evidence.
5. It is further submitted that it appears from case records that on 9.1.1998 summons against prosecution witnesses have been issued but process of summons has not been served upon prosecution witnesses and case was running for evidence and awaiting service report. It is further submitted that it is clear from order dated 3. 3. 1998 that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 5/12 service report of summon has not been received but learned court below directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against prosecution witnesses and till 26.6.1998 same has not been issued. On 26.6.1998, again order for issuance of warrant of arrest and process u/s-82 and 83 Cr. P. C has been passed against prosecution witnesses and same has not been issued till 8.12.1998. It is further submitted that on 9. 1.1999 again learned court below directed to issue process of warrant of arrest and process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against prosecution witnesses and same was issued.
6. It is further submitted that till 4.9.1999 no service report was submitted by office concerned. From perusal of order sheet, it appears that on 8.9.1999 service report has been attached with records.
7. It is further submitted that since 1.10.1999 to 13.7.2000, the court was vacant thereafter case has been transferred to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -VII, Hilsa and same was received in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Hilsa on 8.8.2000. On 7.3.2001, order for issuance of D.O. letter has been passed and same was Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 6/12 issued. Thereafter, till 16.6.2001, no service report has been submitted by the office concerned and since 16.6.2001 all accused [Respondents] left necessary pairvi attendance in the case, accordingly, their bail bond has been cancelled once again on 8.8.2001 and order for issuance of process against accused respondents has been passed and warrant of arrest has been issued on 10.8.2001 and again case has been fixed for appearance. Again, on 12.7.2002, order for issuance of process u/s-82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been passed against accused [respondents no.2 to7] and same was issued on 25.7.2002. It is further stated that it is clear from order sheet dated 31.8.2005 that one accused [Respondent] Sudhir Manjhee arrested and sent to judicial custody. It is further submitted that on 2.12.2005 accused (Respondent) Sudhir Manjhee granted bail and released from judicial custody on 3.12.2005, whereafter, matter was fixed for appearance on 15.12.2005. On 15.12.2005, accused [Respondent] Sudhir Manjhee was in attendance and rest accused [Respondents) were absconding, accordingly, date has been fixed for appearance on 24.1.2006. Thereafter, on 27.12.2005, rest Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 7/12 five accused persons (Respondents) surrendered in the court and released on bail.
8. It is further submitted that appearance of all accused [Respondents] has been completed and again case has been fixed for evidence, fixing 24.2.2006 and order for issuance of summons against prosecution witnesses has been passed. On 2.9.2006, again order for issuance of summons through D.M. & S.P. Nalanda has been passed to secure attendance of prosecution witnesses and same was issued on 5.3.2008 but, service report has not been submitted till 29.6.2009. Thereafter, on 29.6.2009, order for issuance of warrant of arrest has been passed against prosecution witnesses through A.S.P., Hilsa and same was issued on 9.11.2009. It is further submitted that on 3.2.2010, order for reminder of process issued against prosecution witnesses has been passed, issued on 25.2.2010. On 5.4.2010, learned court below directed to the public prosecutor to produce prosecution witnesses. Learned court below directed to produce prosecution witness by giving last chance, fixing the matter on 29.9.2010 but, on 29.9.2010, no prosecution Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 8/12 witnesses turned up and, accordingly, evidence of prosecution has been closed and learned court below took statements of all accused persons (Respondents) u/s-313 Cr.P.C. fixing 1.10.2010 for judgment.
9. It appears from the impugned judgment and even from the perusal of the aforesaid chronology as submitted by learned counsel appearing for appellant that the case was initiated by the appellant being Circle Officer of the Hilsa Block/Circle. He was remained posted for so long years in different offices of Bihar. The witnesses were also the government servants, working in the B.D.O./Circle Office, Hilsa. By no stretch of argument, it can be believed that the appellant was not aware about the proceeding for long fourteen years. It transpires that even after passing of about nine years of the impugned judgment, the present appeal was preferred in the year 2019. It transpires from the argument of the learned counsel that the Bihar Government has approved sanction qua prosecution of appellant in cross case qua same occurrence as lodged by respondent/accused. It also transpires that after retirement, now the appellant has Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 9/12 preferred to challenge the judgment of acquittal as per his own convenience to create pressure upon accused/respondents as to enter into compromise.
10. Dealing with law of limitation, it would be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.R. and others vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in (2024) 12 SCC 336 highlighted the essence of condonation of delay, which are as under:-
"7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy, it is enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" i.e. it is for the general welfare that the period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals.
8. The court have always treated the statutes of limitation and prescription as statute of peace and repose. They envisage that a right not Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 10/12 exercised or the remedy not availed for a long time ceased to exist. This is one way of putting to an end to a litigation by barring the remedy rather than the right with the passage of time."
11. It would also be apposite to reproduce paragraph nos. 24, 26 and 27 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Union of India and Anr. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His L.R. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 489], which read as under:-
"24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay.
26. ... The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fide of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principle of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 11/12 "Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants."
12. This appeal was preferred after about eight years seven months and fourteen days of passing the impugned judgment. The aforesaid period not appears properly explained by the appellant except, the submission that being government servant, he was not aware about the proceedings and only when he retired and appeared in his case lodged by respondents, he came to know about the status of this case, whereafter, present appeal was preferred, is not a sufficient/convincing ground qua genuine explanation on behalf of appellant/first informant as to condone such long delay of about eight years seven months and fourteen days as to prefer the present appeal against acquittal.
13. Accordingly, the interlocutory application qua condoning delay stands dismissed.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.2062 of 2019
14. In view of aforesaid, since the present appeal is barred by law of limitation in view of aforesaid order, the present appeal against acquittal stands dismissed. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2019(10) dt.16-02-2026 12/12
15. Let a copy of this order along with LCR, if any, be sent to learned trial court henceforth.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/-
AFR/-
U T