Allowed¶25

Abdul Latif Abdulla / Sanjay Bapurao Nikhure ( in Jail) v. State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Wadner

Condonation of delay – Criminal appeal against conviction – 39 days' delay

Bombay HC4 Mar 2026APPA/319/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 39 days in filing criminal appeal against conviction; POCSO Act S.5(i), 5(m) life sentence with fine Rs.25000/-; IPC S.376(2)(i); lack of legal knowledge as sufficient cause; valuable right to challenge conviction; victim added as respondent No.2; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; APPA No.319/2025 in Criminal Appeal ST.No.2798/2025; Abdul Latif Abdulla @ Sanjay Bapurao NIkhure v. State of Maharashtra (PSO Wadner, Hinganghat, Wardha); Coram Urmila Joshi-Phalke & Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.; decided 16/04/2026.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 39 days in preferring the appeal against conviction; Office to register the appeal; appeal to be listed after vacations. ¶25

Abdul Latif Abdulla / Sanjay Bapurao Nikhure (… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5975-DB

¶2

13 appa319.25

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION APPA NO.319/2025 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.2798/2025 Abdul Latif Abdulla @ Sanjay Bapurao NIkhure

¶7

..vs..

¶8

State of Mah., thr.PSO Wadner, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha

¶9

............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶10

Shri A.M.Chandekar, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri S.A.Ashirgade, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶11

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NIVEDITA P.MEHTA, JJ . DATE : 16/04/2026

¶12

Leave is granted to learned counsel for the applicant to add the victim as party respondent No.2.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay caused in preferring appeal against conviction. Delay is of 39 days.

¶15

The applicant is convicted for offence under Section 5(i) and 5(m) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo for life and pay fine Rs.25000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

¶16

He is further convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC.

¶17

The applicant received copy of the judgment impugned on 16.10.2023, but he was not having legal knowledge and, therefore, when his brother visited him in jail, he handed over

.....2/-

13 appa319.25

copy of the judgment and chargesheet. Thereafter, he approached an Advocate and, thereafter, filed the appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that considering valuable right of the applicant to prefer an appeal is involved, due to lack of knowledge the delay is caused, which is sufficient and satisfactory reason and, therefore, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶23

Learned APP for the State has strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that there is no sufficient and satisfactory reason.

¶24

Considering reasons mentioned in the application and considering fact that valuable right of the applicant to challenge the conviction is involved, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶25

In view of that, the application is allowed . The delay of 39 days is condoned. Office to register the appeal.

¶26

Application stands disposed of .

¶27

List the appeal after vacations.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

!! BrWankhede !!

¶30

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/04/2026 12:23:30

¶31

...../-

Abdul Latif Abdulla / Sanjay Bapurao Nikhure ( in Jail) v. State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Wadner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latif Abdulla / Sanjay Bapurao Nikhure ( in Jail) v. State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Wadner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devanand Bharatrao Mahakalkar vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai

Mrs Maria W/O Cyrus Chang vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Gittikhadan Police Nagpur

Parampujya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Smarak Samiti, Thr. President and Another vs Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Thr. Its Deputy Registrar, Nagpur

Rajendra S/O Amrut Ingle vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mumbai and Ors.

Viraj S/O Suhas Patil vs State of Maha Thr Director General of Police, and Others.

Pradeep S/O Rambhau Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra Thr Inspector General of Prisons Yerwada Pune