IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1518 of 2009 BALESHWAR YADAV, son of Sri Ramesar Yadav, resident of vill.- Looti Tar, P.S.-Imamganj, Distt.-Gaya -----------------Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Savitri Devi, D/o Sri Rameshwarup Yadav, resident of village- Panchratan, P.S.-Dobhi, District-Gaya------------------Opp. Parties. ------------- 2. 27.10.2009 Heard the parties. The impugned order dated 8.8.2008 has been passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sherghati, Gaya, in connection with Complaint Case no.244 of 2004 whereby bail bond granted to the petitioner has been cancelled which has not been challenged within the stipulated period of 90 days and an explanation is given for non-approaching this Court in time but he has made his submission on the merit of the case that direction of the Hon’ble High Court, through which petitioner was allowed bail, was not to remain absent for two consecutive days but there was never such laches on petitioner’s part even then his bail bond was cancelled. Limitation was there to approach this Court, so if on merit the order is illegal that cannot be made a ground for condoning the delay. On the other point it is said that requisition slip for certified copy of the impugned order was given on behalf of the petitioner on 3.6.2009 which he received on 25.6.2009. But that is beyond the period of limitation, so the period taken for getting the certified copy of the impugned order can never be taken as an explanation. Otherwise that period is excluded only if the certified copy is applied within the limitation period. Having no knowledge of - 2 - the impugned order or petitioner’s coming from a family of lower strata can also be not taken as an excuse as it was the bounden duty to have knowledge of each and every date to comply the direction to remain present. Maximum option for absence was for two dates so it cannot be left open for the advocate to obtain date from the court for the petitioner. So explanation given by the petitioner is not acceptable. The limitation petition placed at flag ‘A’ is dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is also dismissed finding the same time barred. But at the same time an observation is made that if really there was no default of two days and there was representation under section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that will be considered by the trial court in case petitioner surrenders and prays for any bail. sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )