Bombay High Court
UMESH RAMCHANDRA GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal as it was bona fide and beyond the appellant's control.
Summary
Umesh Ramchandra Gaikwad, convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 1,090‑day delay in filing his appeal. The delay was attributed to his incarceration from 15 October 2022, which allegedly impeded his ability to obtain legal assistance promptly after the judgment on 19 June 2023. The Court examined the justification and found the delay to be bona fide and beyond the appellant's control. Consequently, the Court held that the delay could be condoned. The interim application was made absolute, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 1,090‑day delay in filing the appeal can be condoned given the appellant's incarceration.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302
Subjects
- criminal appeal
- condonation of delay
- Section 302 IPC
- life imprisonment
- procedural law
Judgment
1/2 4 APEALST-16599-26.odt
Salgaonkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANDIRA MILIND Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
SALGAONKAR Date: 2026.08.29 18:06:08 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.16599 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2983 OF 2026
Umesh Ramchandra Gaikwad .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
…
Ms.Palak Dubey for the Appellant/Applicant.
Smt.Sangeeta Shinde, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 29th AUGUST, 2026
...
P.C:-
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2983 OF 2026
1. The Application seeks condonation of delay of 1090 days
in filing of the Appeal, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the
Additional Sessions Judge delivered in Sessions Case No.92 of
2012, thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for life.
2. Heard the counsel for the Applicant and perused the
Application. The justification offered for condoning the delay
is the factum of incarceration of the Applicant at the time
2/2 4 APEALST-16599-26.odt
when the Judgment was pronounced and this created certain
obstructions in his way of securing the legal assistance and,
therefore, it is prayed that the delay be condoned, as the same
is neither deliberate nor intentional and has occurred on
account of circumstances, which were beyond his control.
3. We have perused the Application to find that the
Applicant was incarcerated since 15/10/2022, when the NBW
was issued and at the time of pronouncement of the Judgment
on 19/06/2023, he was in jail. Being in jail itself created an
inhibition on his part to seek immediate legal assistance, so
that the Appeal could be filed within time.
Finding that delay is bona fide and was beyond the
control of the Applicant, we deem it appropriate to condone
the same.
Interim Application is made absolute in the aforestated
terms.
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.16599 OF 2026
4. Admit.
5. The learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State.
6. Call for Record & Proceedings.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Checking your session…