Bhausaheb Ramdas Wagh v. Pramod @ Bandukaka Purushottam Bachhav And ORS
WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Manoj 5-IA-1200-2025.doc WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2025.07.17 18:10:17 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1200 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.6609 OF 2025 Bhausaheb Ramdas Wagh ...Applicant Vs.
Pramod @ Bandukaka Purushottam Bachhav & Ors.
...Respondents
------ Mr. Nikhil G. Hire a/w Adv. Sampada S. Patil, for the Applicant. Ms. Mrunal Bhide, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 9. Ms. Priyanka S. Rane, APP for the Respondent No.10-State. ------ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 16th JULY, 2025 P.C. :- 1) This is an Application for condonation of delay of 342 days in filing the Appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated 10th April 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon in Sessions Case No.19 of 2012.
2) Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that after the Judgment was pronounced he could not immediately engage a lawyer because he was in poor financial condition. He was suffering from health issues. Apart from that, there was use of political pressure and threat to his life, which is also evident from the fact that about 12 witnesses had turned 1/2
Manoj 5-IA-1200-2025.doc hostile at the trial and therefore, there was delay of 342 days in filing the Appeal.
3) Learned Counsel for the Respondents - accused submitted that these reasons are not sufficient. The Application for certified copy was made immediately and therefore, he was in the process of filing the Appeal and there is unexplained delay of 342 days.
4) Considering both these submissions, we have taken into account that there was a possibility of political pressure and about 12 witnesses, one after the other, had turned hostile. 5) Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay of 342 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
6) The Appeal be processed further.
7) Interim Application is disposed of.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 2/2