Bombay High Court
DEEPAK BHARGAVAversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and allowed the interim application, subject to payment of costs to the CBI.
Summary
Deepak Bhargava filed Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2017, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 19 January 2024 for non‑prosecution. He subsequently filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 482‑day delay in filing the revision and restoration of the dismissed application. The applicant’s counsel argued that miscommunication caused the advocate’s non‑appearance and pleaded for condonation. The CBI opposed, emphasizing the substantial delay. The Court examined the record, found that satisfactory reasons for both the non‑appearance and the delay were furnished, and therefore allowed the interim application on the condition that the applicant pay Rs.5,000 to the CBI within four weeks. The interim application was thus disposed of in the applicant’s favour, subject to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 482 days in filing an interim application for restoration of a dismissed criminal revision can be condoned.
- Whether the interim application seeking restoration of the revision should be allowed despite the delay.
Subjects
- criminal revision
- condonation of delay
- interim application
- non‑prosecution
- costs
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
921-CRI.IA-3115-2025.DOC
Akash Tayde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3115 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2017
Deepak Bhargava …Applicant
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation …Respondent
Ms. Angana Sarmah i/b Diwakar Singh, for the Applicant.
Mr. Jai Vohra i/b Amit Mundhe, SPP, for CBI.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 17TH JUNE 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Ms. Sarmah, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Mr. Vohra, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. The relief sought in the Interim Application is seeking
condonation of delay of 482 days in filing the application and for
restoration of Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2017. The
said Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2017 has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 19 th January
2024 for non prosecution.
Page 1
921-CRI.IA-3115-2025.DOC
Akash Tayde
3. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant that due to some miscommunication the Applicant's
Advocate failed to remain present. She submits that for the reasons
set out in the application, the application be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vohra, learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondents strongly opposes the application. He submits that
there is huge delay of 482 days and therefore, the application be
dismissed.
5. Perusal of the record shows that reasons are set out for non
appearance of the Advocates and the Criminal Revision Application
has been dismissed at the stage of admission. Adequate reasons are
also set out for delay condonation. Accordingly, for the reasons set
out in the application the same is allowed in terms of Prayer
Clause 'b' and 'c' on the condition that the Applicant pays cost of
Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation
within a period of four weeks from today.
6. The Interim Application is disposed of in above terms.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 2
Checking your session…