Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 30 (JHR)

Vijay Kumar Singh v. Union of India through CBI

2025-01-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 9879 of 2023 In Cr. Revision No. 1310 of 2023 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI for the Opposite Party. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning a delay of 1233 days in filing the revision application. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially an application was preferred by the petitioner before this Court challenging the order taking cognizance but during the pendency of the said application the discharge application preferred by the petitioner was rejected which constrained him to file a separate application for amending the prayer portion made in Cr.M.P. No. 1149 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Interlocutory Application 12.10.2023 the present revision application has been no separate revision application was preferred by him against the order refusing to discharge the petitioner dated 05.03.2018. He submits that he shall file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the said Interlocutory Application filed in Cr.M.P. No. 1149 of 2012 seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the said application. 4. He is granted two weeks’ time in order to file the supplementary affidavit. I.A. No. 9880 of 2023 In Cr. Revision No. 1312 of 2023 5. Heard Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI for the Opposite Party. 6. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning a delay of 1234 days in filing the revision application. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially an application was preferred by the petitioner before this Court challenging the order taking cognizance but during the pendency of the said application the discharge application preferred by the petitioner was rejected which constrained him to file a separate application for amending the prayer portion made in W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Interlocutory Application was kept pending and on 05.05.2023 W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 12.10.2023 the present revision application has been no separate revision application was preferred by him against the order refusing to discharge the petitioner dated 05.03.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Interlocutory Application was kept pending and on 05.05.2023 W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 12.10.2023 the present revision application has been no separate revision application was preferred by him against the order refusing to discharge the petitioner dated 05.03.2018. He submits that he shall file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the said Interlocutory Application filed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 2011 seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the said application. 8. He is granted two weeks’ time in order to file the supplementary affidavit. 9. Let both these cases be listed on 24th January, 2025.