Bombay High Court
PRATAP MANOJKUMAR SAHUversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the delay is condonable on the basis of the appellant's bona‑fide justification.
Summary
The applicant, convicted under sections 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act and sections 363 and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 986‑day delay in filing his appeal. He argued that he was a migrant labourer with no contacts in Maharashtra, was incarcerated for nine years, and only recently obtained legal assistance to file the appeal. The Court examined the justification offered and found it bona‑fide. Consequently, it granted condonation of the delay, made the interim application absolute, and ordered that a notice of the criminal appeal and suspension of sentence be served on the second respondent. The notice is to be served through D.N. Nagar police station with a returnable date of 30‑09‑2026, and the respondent may engage counsel or be provided one by the legal services authority.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 986 days in filing an appeal against a conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC can be condoned.
- Whether the appellant's justification for the delay is sufficient to merit condonation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 363, 376(2)(i)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 6
Subjects
- POCSO
- condonation of delay
- criminal appeal
- life imprisonment
- suspension of sentence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
1/2 9 IA 2811-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by MANALI
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2811 OF 2026
MANALI PRASANNA
TILAK
PRASANNA Date:
TILAK 2026.09.07
IN
11:56:10
+0530 CRIMINAL APPEAL ST NO. 16046 of 2026
Pratap Manojkumar Sahu .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents
…
Mr. Shubhankar Avhad i/b Pranav Borgave for the applicant.
Ms.Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the State.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ
DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C:-
1 Application seek condonation of delay of 986 days in
filing the Appeal, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
passed in POCSO Special Case No. 395/2016.
2 We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and
perused the application.
Under the impugned judgment, the applicant stand
convicted for committing offences punishable u/s.4, 6 and 12 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
short ‘POCSO Act’) and also under sections 363, 376(2)(i) of
the IPC and is sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life.
The application proceed to state that the applicant was in
jail for a period of nine years and he belong to the State of
Tilak
2/2 9 IA 2811-26.doc
Orissa and had come to Maharashtra as a labour in construction
industry, and therefore, had no acquaintances in the State, so as
to enable him to take necessary steps, challenging the
conviction imposed upon him.
Apart from this, he was lodged in Kalamba Jail, Kolhapur
and with appropriate legal advice, he sought certified copies,
and was able to establish contact with an advocate who
thereafter filed the Appeal.
3 Being satisfied with the bonafides of the justification
offered, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay.
Interim Application is made absolute in terms of its prayer
clause.
APPEAL ST No.16046/2026 & IA 2812/2026
4 We deem it appropriate to issue notice of the Criminal
Appeal and Interim Application for suspension of sentence to
respondent no.2, which shall be served through D.N. Nagar
police station.
The notice shall indicate the returnable date to be
30/9/2026 and it shall also indicate that the respondent no.2 is
at liberty to engage her own counsel or Advocate, of if she is
unable to do so, she will be provided the counsel from the legal
services authority.
Let the learned APP ensure that the notice is served upon
respondent no.2.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Tilak
Checking your session…