Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2026)

Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the delay of 1204 days in filing the Appeal in each of the six Criminal Revision Applications (Nos. 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 and 461 of 2025), subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- in each matter payable to the Complainant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1204 days in filing the Applicant's Appeal/Revision Application should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The delay for filing the Appeal is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- in each matter payable to the Complainant.

Ratio / Principle

Every accused has a right to challenge the judgment and order passed against him, and delay for filing an Appeal should be considered liberally; the learned Sessions Court did not consider this while deciding the Application for condonation of delay.

Key takeaways

Because the Applicant is behind bars, the Court decided the Application on merits even though Respondent No.2 had not yet filed its reply.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 and 461 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Shivkumar Dige J., 9 February 2026): Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and in custody for over 18 months, having undergone sentence in three matters, sought condonation of a delay of 1204 days in filing his Appeal. The learned Sessions Court, while deciding the earlier condonation application, had not considered the settled principle that every accused has a right to challenge the judgment and order passed against him and that delay in filing an Appeal should be considered liberally. Acting on that principle, and deciding the matter on merits because the Applicant was behind bars, the Court allowed the Applications and condoned the delay, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- in each matter payable to the Complainant.

106-REVN-439-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2025

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2026.02.11 15:05:49 +0530

Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 440 OF 2025 Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 441 OF 2025 Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 442 OF 2025 Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 443 OF 2025

Page 1 of 4

106-REVN-439-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh … Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 461 OF 2025

Mohammed Hanif Ismail Shaikh … Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

Mr.Onkar Gurav a/w Mr.Dhanesh Dumbre i/b Ms.Anjali Patil, for the Applicant in all matter.

Ms.R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State in REVN/439/2025. Mr.M.G. Patil, APP for Respondent-State in REVN/440 and 442 of 2025.

Mr.B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State in REVN/441/443/461 of 2025.

Mr.Umar Siddique a/w Mr.Harshit, for Respondent No.2 in all matters.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 9^th FEBRUARY 2026

P.C. :

. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned

counsel for Respondent No.2.

The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 seeks time to file

Page 2 of 4

106-REVN-439-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

reply. On the last date also time was sought to file reply.

The Applicant is behind bars. Hence, this Court is deciding this Application on merit.

By this Application, the Applicant is seeking condonation of the delay of 1204 days.

The learned counsel for the Applicant submit that Applicant has been convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. He is behind bar. There is delay of more than 1200 days for filing Revision Application and requested to allow the Application.

It is contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that there is delay of more than three years and five months. The Applicant has preferred Appeal only when he was arrested. There is huge delay. There is no explanation and requested to reject the Application.

I have heard all learned counsel.

The Applicant is convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short). The Applicant is behind bars for more than 18 months and he has under gone sentence imposed on him in three matters.

Page 3 of 4

106-REVN-439-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

It is settled principle of law that every accused has right to challenge the judgment and order passed against him and delay for filing Appeal should be considered liberally but this fact is not considered by the learned Sessions Court while deciding the Application for condonation of delay.

In view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Applications are allowed.

(ii) The delay for filing the Appeal is condoned

subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- in each matter payable to the Complainant.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 4 of 4