Rahul Daga v. The State Of Maharashtra
115-REVN-290-2025 (CR).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 290 OF 2025 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Rahul Daga ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Mainak Adhikary i/b. Ajinkya Badar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. P.P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.
Ms. Rucheeta Dhuru a/w. Mr. Avinash Godake, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________ by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date:
2026.02.23 19:22:38 +0530
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 13th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
By this Application, Applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 91 days for filing the Revision Application.
2.
It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that Applicant has challenged the issue process order passed against him and after passing the order, Applicant received certified copy of order in month of April. Applicant was also trying to get order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Hence, delay is caused and requested to allow the application.
3.
It is contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that there is no explanation for causing delay. There is an inordinate delay. The serious allegations are levelled against the Applicant and requested to
115-REVN-290-2025 (CR).doc Tikam reject the Application.
4.
Learned APP submits that appropriate orders be passed. 5.
I have heard all learned counsel. Applicant has challenged the issue process order passed against him. It is settled law that the person has right to challenge the order passed against him. There is delay of 91 days for challenging the order. It is not inordinate delay. 6.
Considering these facts, I pass following order: (a) The Application is allowed and disposed of (b) Criminal Revision Application be registered.
(c) Stand over to 06/03/2026.
(d) The order passed by the learned Sessions Court is quashed and set aside.
(e) The learned Court shall hear the revision Application as expeditiously as possible.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)