IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2011 Shyam Narayan Singh son of Late Mahangu Singh, Resident of Rasen, P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Buxar, …….. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar …….. Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Miss. Sudha Chandra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, A.P.P. ----------------------------------- 4. 04.11.2011 I.A. No. 2133 of 2011 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in filing this Cr. Revision application. It has been submitted that although the Cr. Appeal was dismissed for default on 30.6.2010 but the petitioner could come to know about dismissal of the Appeal on 28.8.2011 when the Police came to him and arrested. The delay in filing this Cr. Revision application is condoned. The I.A. No. 2133 of 2001 stands allowed. The accused petitioner has preferred this Revision application against the Judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Cum F.T.C. II, Buxar, by which Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2007 has been dismissed for default. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2007 against the Judgment and order dated 17.2.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magisrate, 1st Class, Buxar, in G.R. No. 1277 of 2001, Trial No. 207 of 2007. The petitioner has engaged the 2 Lawyer but during pendency of the Appeal, he left the practice as a result of which the petitioner could not come to know this fact and due to non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Cr. Appeal was dismissed for default. He has submitted that the Appeal has been filed on good ground and the case could not have been dismissed for default at least and the learned Appellate Court should have appointed Amicus Curiae. He has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Md. Shakoor Ali Vrs. State of Assam reported in 2011(2), P.L.J.R. S.C. 67. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing his prayer. After hearing the learned counsel of both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and the Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2007 is remanded to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Buxar, for disposal in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on 22.8.2011 and since then he has been in custody. The petitioner above named, will be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Satyendra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar or his 3 successor in connection with G.R. Case No. 1277 of 2001, T.R. No. 207 of 2007. In the result, this Revision Application stands allowed. S.Ali ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)