The State of Maharashtra v. Aakash Ashok Oval and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026IA/903/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 160 days delay; application for leave to appeal; State of Maharashtra applicant; Aakash A. Oval respondent; Sessions Case No.304 of 2017/2021; Additional Sessions Judge Pune; judgment and order dated 27.03.2024; certified copy delay 03.04.2024 to 30.05.2024; Public Prosecutor proposal; Law and Judicial Department; Bundgarden Police Station service report; APP Kranti Hiwrale; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Kotwal and Patil JJ.; decided 06.01.2026; delay condoned, application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 160 days in filing the application for leave to appeal condoned; Interim Application allowed and disposed of. ¶¶20

The State of Maharashtra vs Aakash Ashok Oval and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

35-ia903-25.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT ANANDRAO ANANDRAO IDHOL IDHOL Date: 2026.01.08 19:19:54 +0530

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.903 OF 2025 IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (ST.)NO.3506 OF 2025

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Aakash A. Oval & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Ms.Kranti Hiwrale, APP for the State - Applicant.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 6TH JANUARY, 2026.

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

This is an application for condonation of delay of 160

¶11

days in filing the application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dared 27^th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.304 of 2017.

¶12

Learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment

¶13

and order was passed on 27^th March, 2024. Thereafter, an application for certified copy was made on 3^rd April, 2024 and it

¶14

35-ia903-25.doc

¶15

was delivered on 30^th May, 2024. After that the learned Public Prosecutor in the Trial Court prepared the proposal for recommending filing of an appeal to the Law and Judicial Department. Some time was taken to arrive at a decision to direct the Public Prosecutor to lodge an appeal. After that the papers were received in the office of the Public Prosecutor in this Court and thus the application for leave to file an appeal was filed.

¶16

We had issued the notice to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on this application for condonation of delay. The office report shows that the report was received from Bundgarden Police Station, Pune stating that the notice was duly served on the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶17

In this background, accepting the reasons for delay, the Interim Application is allowed. The delay of 160 days in filing the application to prefer an appeal against the the judgment and order dared 27^th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.304 of 2021 is condoned.

¶18

2/3

¶19

35-ia903-25.doc

¶20

The Interim Application is allowed and disposed of.

¶21

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

¶22

3/3

The State of Maharashtra v. Aakash Ashok Oval and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Aakash Ashok Oval and Anr.

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

The State of Maharashtra vs Aniket Harishchandra Kale and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra vs Moinuddin Abubakar Shaikh and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammed Siraj Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh And Anr.

Ravi Ghai vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kalayani Ajay Ahire vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Janardan Hariram Varma @ Chaudhari vs State of Maharashtra