← Library
Bombay High CourtIA/3429/2024disposed off

Ganesh Shital Patnayak v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

2024-09-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal2 pages

: 1 :

7-IA-3429-24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3429 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL [STAMP] NO.16661 OF 2024 Ganesh Shital Patnayak .....Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and another .... Respondents ----- Mr. Sujeet Bugade, Advocate (appointed) for the Applicant. Smt. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. ----- CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2024 P.C. :

1.

This is an application for condonation of 1 year and 179 days delay in preferring the Appeal.

2.

The Applicant was the original accused in Special Case (POCSO) No.300/2018 before the Special Judge under POCSO Act, Thane. The learned Judge, vide her judgment and order dated 7.12.2022 convicted the Applicant for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 375(b), 376(2)(f)(j) (n), 376AB of IPC as well as under Section 3(b) read with Section 4, Section 5(l)(m)(n) read with Section 6, Section 7 by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date:

2024.09.04 11:36:16 +0530 PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Deshmane(PS)

: 2 :

7-IA-3429-24.odt read with Section 8, Section 9(l)(m)(n) read with Section 10 and under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act'). The major sentence imposed on him was for twenty years besides imposition of fine.

3.

Heard Mr. Sujeet Bugade, learned appointed counsel for the Applicant and Smt. Sangita Shinde, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

4.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was in custody continuously since 7.9.2018. There was no one to look after his interest. He had to file Appeal with the assistance of the Legal Services Authority of this Court and, therefore, there is delay of 1 year and 179 days in filing the Appeal. Considering these submissions and in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. The Appeal be processed further. The Application is disposed of accordingly.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)