Bombay High Court
SITARAM BABURAO JAGTAP ALIAS BHAUSAHEB SALVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory right to challenge the conviction warrants condonation.
Summary
The accused, Sitaram Baburao Jagtap alias Bhausaheb Salve, was convicted on 28 June 2017 and filed an appeal after a delay of 3,285 days, seeking condonation of the delay. The State of Maharashtra opposed the condonation, relying on Supreme Court judgments in State of M.P. v. Saleem alias Chamaru and Balesh Kumar Kuraiti v. State of Chhattisgarh, arguing that no scope existed for acquittal. The accused contended that he had sent a communication to the jail authority challenging his conviction, which was not properly addressed. The High Court examined the statutory right of an accused to challenge a conviction and found merit in condoning the delay. Consequently, the court allowed the criminal application for condonation of delay and disposed of the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 3,285 days in filing an appeal against conviction can be condoned under criminal procedure law.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedents cited by the State preclude condonation of such delay.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- criminal appeal
- conviction
- statutory right
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:44669-DB
3677.26APPLN
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
28 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3677 OF 2026
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO.9955/2026
SITARAM BABURAO JAGTAP
ALIAS BHAUSAHEB SALVE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.A.S.Hazari
APP for Respondent-State : Mrs.M.N.Ghanekar
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.
DATE : 28.09.2026
P.C. :
1] Heard. The applicant–accused is seeking
condonation of delay of 3285 days in filing the Appeal against
his conviction under the judgment and order dated
28.06.2017.
2] The learned APP strongly opposed the present
application by placing reliance on the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Saleem alias Chamaru and another reported in [2005] 5
SCC 554 and in the case of Balesh Kumar Kuraiti Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
3677.26APPLN
2
1562 and submitted that there is no scope for acquittal of
the present applicant.
3] As against this, the learned counsel for the
applicant-accused submits that the applicant–accused had in
fact forwarded a communication to the Jail Authority for
challenging his conviction and but somehow it could not be
dealt with properly.
4] Be that as it may, since the applicant–accused is
having statutory right of challenging his conviction, we deem
it appropriate to condone delay. Accordingly, Criminal
Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses-A
and B. Criminal Application is disposed of.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
Checking your session…