Krishnkumar Malhari Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1834 Bom

                                                    1/2          12-IA-660-23-IN-APEAL-ST-18611-22.odt

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO.660 OF 2023
                                                           IN
                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.18611 OF 2022

                           Krishnakumar Malhari Jadhav                        .... Applicant

                                          versus

                           State of Maharashtra & Anr.                        .... Respondents
                                                             .......

                           •       Mr. Chetan A. Alai (Appointed) Advocate for Applicant.
                           •       Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.

                                                      CORAM      : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                                      DATE       : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2023

                           P.C. :

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 113

days in filing the Appeal. The Applicant was convicted and

sentenced by the Designated Judge under POCSO Act, Greater

Mumbai, vide his Judgment and Order dated 05/03/2021

passed in POCSO Special Case No.1119 of 2020.

          Digitally
          signed by
          MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
V         NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
          2023.02.24
          15:00:10
          +0530

2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted and it is

also mentioned in the application that the Applicant is in jail Nesarikar 2/2 12-IA-660-23-IN-APEAL-ST-18611-22.odt

since October 2020. His financial condition was poor and

therefore he had asked for assistance of legal aid counsel.

Accordingly advocate Mr. Chetan A. Alai was appointed to

represent him. Some time is required to collect the documents

and therefore there is delay in filing the Appeal.

3. Considering this ground and in the interest of justice,

the delay of 113 days in preferring the Appeal, is condoned.

4. The Appeal be processed further.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)