The State Of Maharashtra vs Kisan Govind Patil And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1928 Bom

                     Digitally signed
                     by CHITRA
                     SANJAY
         CHITRA      SONAWANE
         SANJAY      Date:
         SONAWANE    2022.02.24
                     16:38:50                   1                  4-IA-1626-2019.doc
                     +0530




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1626 OF 2019
                                                IN
                              ALS (ST.) NO.204 OF 2019
The State of Maharashtra                   ]    Applicant.
             Vs.
Kisan Govind Patil & Ors.                  ]    Respondents.
                                                .....
Mr.A.A.Palkar, APP for State.
Mr.Vinay Bhanushali a/w Sunil Sherif a/w Mr.Zoheb Merchant i/b Falcon
Legal for respondent nos.1 to 5.
                                           ......
                                        CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
                                                PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.

                                        DATE   : 24th FEBRUARY, 2022.

P.C.:

1.      This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an
appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Vasai, Palghar, in Sessions Case No.31/2007 thereby
acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
302, 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 25 of the Arms Act.


2.      The delay is of 88 days. For the reasons assigned in paragraph nos.
3, 4 and 5, delay of 88 days deserves to be condoned.


3.      Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that delay has not been



Chitra Sonawane
                                           2                   4-IA-1626-2019.doc

explained and therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay be
rejected, however, taking into consideration, the contentions in paragraph
nos.3, 4 and 5, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, following
order is passed.
                                  ORDER

1. Application is allowed.

2. Delay of 88 days stands condoned.

3. Application stands disposed of.

[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]

Chitra Sonawane