The State Of Maharashtra v. Dattatraya Dagdu Bhatlawande

1 / 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1061 OF 2025 (For condonation of delay) IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ST) NO.5429 OF 2025 (For Leave to file an Appeal) The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant (Original Complainant) versus Dattatraya Dagdu Bhatlawande .... Respondent (Original accused) .......

• Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the State/Applicant. • Mr. Ajaykumar R. Kori a/w Nidhi Chandanshive, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 21st APRIL, 2026 P.C. :

1.

By this Interim Application, the Applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 44 days caused in filing the Criminal Application for leave to file Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 30/08/2024 passed by the Additional Sessions MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.521 of 2016. The notice was MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date: 2026.04.22 13:30:52 +0530 issued to the Respondent. The Respondent is served. The Nesarikar

2 / 3 Respondent has not filed any reply in the said Interim Application.

2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned APP submitted that the impugned Judgment and order was passed on 30/08/2024. An application for certified copy was preferred on 03/09/2024 and was delivered on 19/10/2024. The last date for filing the application was on 13/01/2024. After scrutiny of papers by the concerned In-charge Assistant Director and Public Prosecutor, the papers were submitted to the Law & Judiciary Department. After receiving and scrutinizing the papers, the present Interim Application was preferred and it was ultimately drafted on 25/02/2025. She submits that the delay, thus, is not intentional and deliberate but for the reason mentioned above.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent strongly opposed the present application for condonation of delay. 4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the explanation offered by the Applicant, we

3 / 3 find that the delay caused in preferring the application is not intentional, but for the reasons stated in paragraph Nos.2 and 3. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this application. 5.

Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i) Interim Application is allowed.

(ii) The delay of 44 days in filing the application for leave to file an Appeal is condoned.

(iii) The Interim Application is disposed of.

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)