Jharkhand High Court
Acq. App./46/2020 of STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GIRIDIH Vs ANAR DEVI ALIAS ANARWA DEVI on 2 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal (DB) No. 46 of 2020 --- State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. --- Appellant Versus 1. Anar Devi @ Anarwa Devi 2. Ajay Mahto @ Ajay Yadav 3. Lutan Mahto @ Lutan Yadav. --- --- Respondents --- CORAM:
( 2026:JHHC:26458-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acq. Appeal (DB) No. 46 of 2020
---
State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. --- Appellant
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Anar Devi @ Anarwa Devi
2. Ajay Mahto @ Ajay Yadav
3. Lutan Mahto @ Lutan Yadav.
--- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Rai ---
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P
For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Adv.
06/02.09.2026 I.A. No.4010 of 2020
Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P and Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a delay of 708 days in filing the appeal.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that due to some procedural delay the appeal could not be filed within time and therefore the delay of 708 days has resulted in filing the appeal.
Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the reasons which have been assigned in the instant application explaining the delay are not tenable.
It appears that the judgment of acquittal was passed on 27.04.2018 after which the learned A.P.P. had sent a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, pursuant to which the matter was sent to the Law Department and thereafter to the office of the learned Advocate General on 01.08.2018 for filing an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. The said file was received in the office of the learned Advocate General on 06.08.2018 and was handed over to an A.P.P and thereafter the appeal was preferred on 03.07.2020.
There is absolutely no explanation with respect to the delay in filing the appeal for the period 06.08.2018 on which date the file was handed
2
over to the concerned A.P.P and the filing of the appeal on 03.07.2020. Some vague explanation has been made that on account of some communication gap and due to misunderstanding, the appeal could not be filed within time. Such explanation cannot get over the delay of almost 2 years in filing the appeal after the file was handed over to the concerned A.P.P.
We, therefore, do not find any reasons to condone the delay of 708 days in filing the appeal and this interlocutory application accordingly stands dismissed.
Consequent to the above, Acq. Appeal (DB) No.46 of 2020 also stands dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated: 2nd September, 2026 Shamim/
Uploaded on:03 /09/2026