Allowed¶23

The State of Maharashtra v. Umesh Alias Sagar Nandu Sawant and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2026IA/1087/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, 20th January 2026, Interim Application No.1087 of 2025 in Criminal Application (ALS)(St.) No.5734 of 2025, The State of Maharashtra v. Umesh @ Sagar N. Sawant & Anr.; condonation of delay of 1 year and 138 days in seeking leave to appeal against acquittal dated 5th June 2023 by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, for offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act 2012; Section 419 BNSS referred; delay held sufficiently explained, not intentional or deliberate; delay condoned and application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 1 year and 138 days caused in filing the present application for leave to Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5th June, 2023; Application allowed and disposed off accordingly. ¶23

The State of Maharashtra vs Umesh Alias Sagar… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

26-ia1087-25.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

¶4

Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2026.01.21 12:53:21 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1087 OF 2025 IN

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ALS) (ST.) NO.5734 OF 2025

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Umesh @ Sagar N. Sawant & Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

Ms.Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl.PP for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr.Pankaj Das for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Ms.Shivani Kundar (through Legal Aid for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 20TH JANUARY, 2026.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

The present Application is filed for condonation of delay of 1 year and 138 days caused in preferring leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5^th June, 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, and Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik for the offence punishable under Section

¶15

1/4

¶16

26-ia1087-25.doc

¶17

376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2012. By the said judgment, the learned Judge had acquitted the Accused. The Applicant has filed the Application seeking leave to file Appeal before this Court. There is delay of 1 year and 138 days which is caused in filing the Criminal Application for leave to file Appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 5^th June, 2023.

¶18

This Court had issued notice to Respondent Nos.1 and

¶19

Both the Respondents are served and are represented by their respective counsels. Learned Addl.PP states that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was passed on 5^th June, 2023. The application for certified copy was preferred on 7^th June, 2023 and was ready on 3^rd July, 2023 and delivered on 7^th July, 2023. She further states that after the scrutiny of the papers by the concerned Public Prosecutor, vide letter dated 5^th October, 2023, the papers were submitted to the Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai requesting to prefer an appeal under

¶20

2/4

¶21

26-ia1087-25.doc

¶22

Section 419 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). She states that after scrutiny by the office of Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, a letter was issued by the Government and the same was received by the office of the Public Prosecutor High Court, Bombay on 3^rd November, 2023. She states that after the papers were received, the same were allotted to the concerned Additional Public Prosecutor for drafting. After the matter was drafted, it was filed. It was delayed by 1 year and 138 days. She submits that the delay which is caused is thus not intentional, nor deliberate but for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Interim Application.

¶23

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We are of the opinion that that the delay which is caused, is sufficiently explained. The delay which is caused is not intentional nor deliberate. Hence, the Application is allowed. The delay of 1 year and 138 days caused in filing the present application for leave to Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5^th June, 2023 is condoned.

3/4

26-ia1087-25.doc

The Application is disposed off accordingly.

¶28

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶29

4/4

The State of Maharashtra v. Umesh Alias Sagar Nandu Sawant and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Umesh Alias Sagar Nandu Sawant and Anr.

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

Ravi Ghai vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra vs Aakash Ashok Oval and Anr.

Kalayani Ajay Ahire vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nilesh Kisan Waghe vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhurajsing @ Rajasing Darogasing Badoria vs State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra vs Ashishkumar Vijaykumar Sahu