Sandeepkumar Pandharilal Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 6911 Bom

                                                                          1.IA.919.2020.doc



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO.919 OF 2020
                                      IN
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.308 OF 2020
Sandeepkumar Pandharilal Yadav                                ....Applicant
    Versus
The State of Maharashtra                                      ....Respondent

Ms. Hema M. Whaval for the Applicant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the State.

                                   CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
                                           SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

DATE : 30th APRIL, 2021.

P.C. :

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay at the instance of the present applicant - Sandeepkumar Yadav, who is sufering conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Vasai in his judgment dated 28.08.2019 in Sessions Case No.116 of 2014. The applicant who was facing charge in the trial for commission of ofence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code preferred an appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after recording the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the applicant/appellant was arrested to custody. The applicant being not conversant with the legal provisions and also was facing fnancial constraints was unable to take necessary steps to approach this Court. The applicant/appellant submitted an application through prison. Legal assistance was provided to the applicant/appellant by appointing a counsel through Legal Aid Services Authority.

2. Ms. Hema Whaval, learned counsel appointed for the applicant

Aarti Palkar 1/2

1.IA.919.2020.doc

submitted before this Court that the delay of 127 days caused in fling the appeal is due to bonafde reasons. The delay is unintentional. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant/appellant has raised substantial grounds in the appeal to challeng the judgment and order of conviction and having every hope of success in the appeal.

3. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and for the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The delay is hereby condoned.

(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.)                     (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)




Aarti Palkar                                                                         2/2