Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Anand Vasudeo Chavan and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2026/457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, considered an interim application for condonation of delay by the State in filing an appeal against a Special Court judgment acquitting the applicant of certain IPC offences while convicting him under the POCSO Act. The Court condoned the delay of over a year, attributing it to office procedure, and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of one year and 173 days in filing the appeal was granted and the interim application was allowed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Anand Vasudeo… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

20-IA-457-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2025

¶4

The State of Maharashtra (Through Nashik Taluka Police Station, Dist. Nashik)

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anand Vasudeo Chavan Age 34 years, Occupation : Business, Residing of : Sayyed Pimpri, Taluka and Dist. Nashik.

¶8

(XYZ (victim) (identity withheld as per Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act) Nashik Taluka Police Station, Nashik. (CR No.I-44 of 2021)

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Ms. Supriya Kak, A.P.P. for the Applicant.

¶11

None for the Respondents.

¶12

-------------------CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 02^nd FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

By the present Interim Application, the Applicant is praying for

¶16

condonation of delay of one year and 173 days seeking leave to file an

1/4

Manisha

20-IA-457-2025.doc

Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 14/06/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) and Addl. Session Judge, Nashik in Special Case (POCSO) No. 244 of 2021 by which the learned Judge had acquitted the Applicant for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Accused was however, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.3,000/-. He was also convicted for offence under Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶21

This Court had after hearing the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Applicant-State issued notice to the Respondents returnable on 11/12/2025. The Office Note shows that the Respondent No.1 is duly served. None appears for the Respondent No.1 though served. The learned A.P.P. states that the impugned Judgment and Order was passed on 14/06/2023. The Application for certified copies was made on 25/07/2024 and the same were ready on 20/08/2024. After scrutiny

2/4

Manisha

20-IA-457-2025.doc

of the papers by the concerned Public Prosecutor, Nashik, vide his letter dated 19/10/2024, he submitted papers to the Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Thereafter, upon scrutiny of the papers by the Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, the same was received by the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Mumbai on 05/11/2024. The present Application which is filed on 04/12/2024, is thus belated by one year 173 days.

¶26

Learned A.P.P. states that the delay which is caused in filing the present Application is explained in paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the Application. She states that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but for the reasons mentioned above.

¶27

We have perused the Application. At the outset, we may state that though we are not satisfied by the manner in which the delay was explained, so also we are not satisfied by the manner in which the delay is caused in preferring the present Application. Yet taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and further taking into

3/4

Manisha

20-IA-457-2025.doc

consideration the fact that the delay was caused due to office procedure, we are of the view that, it is fit to condone the said delay. The delay is accordingly condoned.

¶32

In view of above, the Interim Application No.457 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of as such.

¶33

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)

¶34

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶35

4/4

¶36

Manisha

The State of Maharashtra v. Anand Vasudeo Chavan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Anand Vasudeo Chavan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases