Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusANKUSH DIVENDU DAS GUPTA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The 17‑day delay in filing the leave‑to‑appeal application is not intentional nor inordinate and is therefore condoned.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 17‑day delay in filing a leave‑to‑appeal application against an acquittal order dated 3 September 2025 in a POCSO‑related case. The respondents opposed the condonation, arguing that the delay resulted from the investigating authorities' lack of diligence. The Court examined the reasons for the delay, noting that it was neither intentional nor inordinate and was attributable to procedural and administrative pressures on the prosecuting agency. Accordingly, the Court held that the delay could be condoned. The order therefore condoned the 17‑day delay and directed that the leave‑to‑appeal application be processed further.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 17 days in filing an application for leave to appeal is intentional or inordinate and thus warrant condonation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 376(2)(i)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- leave to appeal
- acquittal
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- IPC
- prosecuting agency
Judgment
1 of 3 25-IA-1300-2026
Sagar Magar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1300 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ST) NO 7794 OF 2026
(FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL)
The State of Maharashtra … Applicant
Versus
Ankush Divendu Das Gupta And Anr. ... Respondents
__________
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for Applicant.
Mr. Manoj Kumar K. Dhall (appointed Advocate) for Respondent
No. 1.
Mr. Drupad S. Patil, (appointed Advocate) for Respondent No. 2.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 5th OCTOBER 2026
PC :
1) This is an application for condonation of delay filed by
the State against Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 3 rd
September 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali
(Division), Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai in Special Case No. 134
of 2019, punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(i) of IPC read with
Sections 4, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The delay is for a period
2 of 3 25-IA-1300-2026
of 17 days.
2) Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 opposed the
delay on the ground that the delay had occurred at the instance of
the Investigating Authorities and that they have not been diligent
in pursuing the matter.
3) We have considered the submissions made by the
Parties. Considering the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3
of the Application, we are of the opinion that the delay is not
intentional nor is the delay inordinate. Considering the procedural
aspect, administrative work and the work pressure of the
prosecuting agency, the delay ought to be condoned.
4) Hence the following Orders:-
i) The delay of 17 days in filing the
Application for leave to appeal against the
Judgment and Order dated 3rd September 2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Borivali (Division), Dindoshi, Goregaon,
Mumbai in Special Case No. 134 of 2019 is
3 of 3 25-IA-1300-2026
condoned.
ii) The application for leave to Appeal be
processed further.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
SAGAR
SANTOSH
MAGAR
Digitally signed by
SAGAR SANTOSH
MAGAR
Date: 2026.10.07
19:12:10 +0530
Checking your session…