Santosh @ Balu S/O Pralhad Kadam vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 4313 Bom

                                                      22-CriAppln-1049-2022
                                     -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                22 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1049 OF 2022
               IN CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO. 2660 OF 2022

              SANTOSH @ BALU S/O PRALHAD KADAM
                                VERSUS
                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                   .....
  Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Z. H. Farooqui h/f Mr. Suresh P. Salgar
              APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. S. Dande
                                  .....

                               CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
                                       SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 25th APRIL, 2022

PER COURT:-

1. Heard.

2. Issue notice to the respondent State. Learned APP waives notice

for the respondent State.

3. The applicant-original accused was tried by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Beed in connection with Sessions Case No. 146 of

2017 and by the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.11.2018,

the applicant-accused has been convicated for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to sufer rigorous

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to

22-CriAppln-1049-2022

suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The

applicant has preferred appeal against the said judgment and order of

conviction which is delayed by 1152 days.

4. Mr. Farooqui h/f Mr. Salgar, learned counsel for the applicant

submits that the applicant is in jail and there is no one in his family to

look after his matter. Further, the financial condition of the applicant

is also not sound and the family members are against him. Thus, the

applicant has filed an application to the High Court Legal Services

Sub-Committee, Aurangabad for filing appeal against the judgment

and order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 146 of 2017. Learned

counsel submits that the applicant is in jail and the delay is not

intentional and deliberate.

5. Learned APP submits that appropriate order may be pased.

6. Though the delay is inordinate one, however, prima facie it

appears from the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial

court that the applicant remained under trial prisoner and after his

conviction on 19.11.2018, he could not prefer an appeal due to lack

of funds and also due to non-cooperation from the other family

members. In view of the same and for the reasons stated in the

22-CriAppln-1049-2022

application, we are inclined to condone the delay. Hence the criminal

application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and

disposed off accordingly.

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre