The Court restored a criminal revision application dismissed five years earlier, condoned the delay, admitted the application for a final hearing, but rejected the prayer for bail.
Delay and restoration application allowed; bail rejected; revision restored for hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.72 OF 2009
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 586 of 2002
Kundalik Govind Kamble & Ors. .. Applicants.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.
Mr Ujwal Agandsurve, Advocate for the
Applicants.
Mrs P. P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State.
Mr Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J.
DATED : 2nd April,2009.
P.C.:-
1. Heard rival submissions for some time.
2. It is criminal application filed for
restoration of earlier dismissal order of
Revision Application No. 586 of 2002. The
said revision application was dismissed by this
Court on 26th March,2004. The date is very
significant inasmuch as present restoration
application filed in the year 2009, after lapse
of five years. Dismissal of revision
application was on the ground of not removing
the office objection.
3. Certain facts of the present case by
which it can be ascertained how the delay is
caused in the present case, can be narrated.
Initially, all the applicants were facing the
trial for the offence punishable under Section
326 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied
offences. They were convicted by the Court and
against which criminal appeal was filed.
4. Criminal appeal was preferred in the
year 2002 and it was dismissed confirming the
judgment and order of conviction dated
3.4.1999. Thereafter, in the same year 2002
criminal revision application No. 586 of 2002
came to be filed before this Court and it came
to be dismissed as mentioned earlier on 26th
March, 2004 by this Court for not removing
office objections.
5. It is factual position as narrated on
behalf of the petitioners that when they were
arrested in the follow up action after
dismissal of criminal revision before this
Court, they knew regarding dismissal of their
case. This, per se, indicates that the
petitioners had committed grave latches and as
such did not bother regarding criminal revision
since the year 2002 as they had already secured
bail and were enjoying liberty.
6. In the present criminal application,
composite prayers are made. Firstly, for
condonation of delay in preferring this
restoration application i.e. delay of about
four years. Secondly, releasing the applicants
on the same bail which they were earlier
enjoying and thirdly main prayer as to
restoration of dismissal of criminal revision
application No. 586 of 2002.
7. Considering the circumstances, as
stated above and considering the laxity on the
part of the applicants, though there is delay
in filing such restoration application after
four years, this Court is inclined to condone
the delay. However, looking to the specific
circumstances and considering that after
securing the bail through out though the
conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of the I.P.C. was since the year
2000, it would be in the fitness of the
situation that the present applicant cannot be
enlarged on bail, though the criminal revision
application can be admitted.
8. In the result, delay in filing the
present restoration application is condoned.
Criminal Revision Application No.586 of 2002 is
restored to the file. Prayer for the bail is
rejected. Criminal Application No.72 of 2009
is disposed of.
9. Revision Application No. 586 of 2002
to appear on board in due course for final
hearing before the appropriate Bench.
(A.R.JOSHI,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone the delay of four years in filing the restoration application.
Whether to admit the criminal revision application despite the delay.
Whether to grant bail to the applicants on the existing terms.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court