The State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Sonmal Rathod and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2026IA/2811/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 61 days; State appeal against acquittal; Application for Leave to Appeal (State) (St.) No.15170 of 2025; Sessions Case No.457 of 2017; Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune; Nigdi Police Station; acquittal dated 27.01.2025; certified copy 28.01.2025; Law & Judiciary Department papers 28.02.2025/13.03.2025; delay not intentional or deliberate; Respondent No.3 did not seriously object; IA allowed and disposed.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 61-day delay in filing the Application for Leave to Appeal (State) (St.) No.15170 of 2025 against the acquittal dated 27.01.2025 in Sessions Case No.457 of 2017; Interim Application No.2811 of 2025 allowed and disposed of accordingly. ¶¶23

The State of Maharashtra vs Ashok Sonmal Rathod and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IA 2811-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2811 OF 2025

¶4

¶5

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (STATE) (ST.) NO.15170 OF 2025

¶6

The State of Maharashtra (Through Nigdi Police Station, Dist. Pune) … Applicant V/s. Ashok Sonmal Rathod & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

¶8

Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl. P.P. for the Applicant-State.

¶9

Mr. Vignesh Ashokan i/b Mr. Sachin H. Deokar for Respondent No.3.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

By the present Interim Application, the Applicant is praying for condonation of delay of 61 days, caused for filing the Application for leave to Appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 27^th January 2025, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.457 of 2017.

¶12

This Court had issued notices to the Respondents, returnable on

¶13

2^nd September 2025. Pursuant to this, the Respondents are served. RvC 1/3

¶14

IA 2811-2025.doc

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that she has filed the Affidavit of Service to that effect. The affidavit of service is taken on record.

¶16

Since the Respondents are served, the Application is taken up for hearing.

¶17

The learned Addl. P.P. submitted that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 27^th January 2025 and immediately, on the next date, an application for certified copy was preferred on 28^th January 2025. She states that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Pune, vide his letter dated 28^th February 2025, submitted papers to the Law & Judiciary Department. The papers were received from Law & Judiciary Department on 13^th March 2025. Immediately, thereafter, the present Application is preferred on 10^th July 2025. She states that the delay is not intentional or deliberate, but for the reasons mentioned above.

¶18

1. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 does not seriously object the application for condonation of delay.

¶19

RvC

¶20

2/3

¶21

IA 2811-2025.doc

¶22

1. Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that the delay in preferring the Application is not intentional or deliberate, but for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the Application.

¶23

1. Hence in view of this, delay is condoned. The Interim Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)

¶25

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶26

RvC

¶27

3/3

¶28

RAJESH Digitally signed byRAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.01.2819:25:26 +0530

The State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Sonmal Rathod and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Sonmal Rathod and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harikisan Vedprakash Agarwal vs Aloo Jal Chibber (Since Deceased) (through Respondent Nos. 4 to 6)

The State of Maharashtra vs Narendra Narayan Chilkamari

Bhikan Nazir Pinjari vs State of Maharashtra

Moreshwar @ Narayan Govind Perekar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra vs Sumit Navinchandra Karodiya and Anr.

Bhikan Nazir Pinjari vs State of Maharashtra