The State of Maharashtra vs Ashishkumar… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

The State of Maharashtra vs Ashishkumar… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 99 days condoned; Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (6-b), i.e., the Criminal Application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2nd December, 2024 is to be heard on its own merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 99 days caused in preferring the Criminal Application for leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2024 (Sessions Case No.1102 of 2019) should be condoned.

Ratio / Principle

The Court was convinced that the 99-day delay was not intentional or deliberate but was occasioned for the reasons explained, namely the time taken in obtaining the certified copy and the processing of papers through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Law & Judiciary Department and the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court.

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay in preferring the present application and allowed the Interim Application in terms of prayer clause (6-b), so that the Criminal Application for leave to appeal against the acquittal is to be heard on its own merits.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — The State of Maharashtra sought condonation of a 99-day delay in preferring an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2nd December, 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.1102 of 2019 arising out of C.R. No.71 of 2019 (offence punishable under Section 302 IPC). Notice had been issued on 18th August, 2025; the respondent was served but none appeared. The delay was traced to the certified-copy process (copy applied for 3rd December, 2024; ready 4th January, 2025; last date of filing 3rd April, 2025) and inter-departmental handling (papers received by the Law & Judiciary Department on 21st January, 2025; forwarded to the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court on 13th May, 2025). Held, the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate; it was condoned and the Interim Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause 6(b), the application for leave to appeal being directed to be heard on its own merits. Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal & Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.; decision dated 17th January, 2026.

30-ia3002-25.doc

vai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT ANANDRAO ANANDRAO IDHOL IDHOL Date: 2026.01.20 15:15:46 +0530

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3002 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ST.)NO.15162 OF 2025

The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Ashishkumar V. Sahu ...Respondent

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

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 17TH JANUARY, 2026.

P.C. :-

The present Application is filed for condonation of

delay of 99 days caused in preferring leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 2^nd December, 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.1102 of 2019 arising out of C.R. No.71 of 2019 for

offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

1/3

30-ia3002-25.doc

This Court had issued notice to the Respondent vide order dated 18^th August, 2025. In pursuance to the said notice, the Respondent is duly served. Today none appears for the Respondent when the matter was called out.

Learned Addl.PP states that the impugned judgment and the order was passed on 2^nd December, 2024. The application for certified copy was preferred on 3^rd December, 2024 and the same was ready on 4^th January, 2025. The last date for filing the application was 3^rd April, 2025. She further states that after the scrutiny of the papers by the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the papers were submitted to the Law & Judiciary Department to prefer an application for leave to file an appeal. On 21^st January, 2025, the papers were received by the office of Law & Judiciary Department, after scrutinizing the papers, the same were forwarded by the Law & Judiciary Department to the office the Public Prosecutor, High Court on 13^th May, 2025. She submits that the delay which is caused is thus not intentional, nor deliberate but for the reasons mentioned above.

2/3

30-ia3002-25.doc

Having heard the learned Addl.PP appearing for the

Applicant, we are convinced that the delay which is caused is not intentional or deliberate but for the reasons mentioned above. Hence, we condone the delay, which is caused in preferring the present application. The Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (6-b), which reads as under :-

“6 (b). The delay of 99 days in filing aforesaid Criminal Application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2^nd December, 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.1102 of 2019 may be condoned and Criminal Application for leave to appeal be heard on its own merits.”

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

3/3