Rahul Gurung vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rahul Gurung vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 35 days condoned; Criminal Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2024 restored at the stage at which it was dismissed; notice directed to the un-served respondents, returnable on 12 September 2025, with the advocate for Respondent No.2 (original Complainant) waiving service; leave granted to file affidavit-in-reply at least one week prior to the next date.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 35 days in filing Interim Application No. 232 of 2025, seeking restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2024 which was dismissed on account of default, ought to be condoned.

Court's answer

The application is allowed: the 35-day delay in filing the interim application is condoned and Criminal Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2024 is restored at the stage at which it was dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Applying the settled Supreme Court position, every day's delay need not be explained; where the rights of the parties are involved they should not be pitted against technicalities, and a pragmatic rather than pedantic view is to be adopted in condonation matters.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.), by order dated 8 August 2025, allowed Interim Application No. 232 of 2025 and condoned a 35-day delay in seeking restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2024, which had been dismissed on account of default by order dated 4 September 2024 (effective 18 September 2024). Relying on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353, and Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Court proceeded on the footing that every day's delay need not be explained, that parties' rights should not be pitted against technicalities, and that a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach governs. The Writ Petition was restored to the stage of its dismissal; notice was ordered to the un-served respondents, returnable on 12 September 2025 (Respondent No.2, the original Complainant, waiving notice through its advocate); and leave was granted to file an affidavit-in-reply at least one week before the next date. No costs were imposed despite the respondents' demand for heavy costs.

23-ia232-25.odt

vai

VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2025.08.14 11:41:56 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2025

IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3829 OF 2024

Rahul Gurung ...Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

Sandeep Singh S. Singh Bisht & Ors. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

Mr.Ankur Pahade with Mr.Sanjay Kokane for the Applicant / Petitioners.

Mr.Mayur Sonavane, APP for the State – Respondent.

Mr.Ratnesh M. Dube for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE : 8TH AUGUST, 2025.

P.C. :-

This Application is filed with a delay of 35 days, for seeking restoration of Criminal Writ Petition no. 3829 of 2024

1/3

23-ia232-25.odt

which was dismissed on account of default, vide order dated 4^th September, 2024, effective from 18^th September, 2024.

The learned Advocate appearing for the original Complainant and the learned APP, submit that the Application deserves to be rejected. The delay is of 35 days and the Applicant should be explaining each and every day’s delay. If the reasons for condonation are not justified, the Application needs to be dismissed with heavy costs.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353, concluding that every day’s delay is not to be explained. When the rights of the parties are being considered, they should not be pitted against technicalities. In such cases, a pragmatic approach has to be adopted, rather than taking a pedantic view. A similar view is taken in Esha Bhattacharjee vs.

Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649.

In view of the above and for the reasons set out, the

2/3

23-ia232-25.odt

Application is allowed. Delay is condoned. The Writ Petition is restored at the stage at which it was dismissed.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3829 OF 2024

Issue notice to the un-served Respondents, returnable on 12^th September, 2025. The learned advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the un-served Respondent Respondent No.2 (original Complainant).

Leave to file affidavit in reply at least one week prior to the next date.

(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

3/3