Bombay High Court

VIJAY ALIAS YASHWANT BHUPAL SONAVALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court condoned the 132‑day delay and ordered the appeal to be registered.

Summary

The applicant, convicted under IPC Section 376(2)(n) and POCSO Act Section 6 and sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment, filed a criminal appeal 132 days after the judgment. He sought condonation of the delay, citing his youth and lack of parental support, while the State and the second respondent argued that no sufficient cause was shown. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 2019 and that condoning the delay would not prejudice the respondents, as the appeal would be heard on merits. It held that the delay could be condoned given the circumstances and ordered the appeal to be registered. The court also appointed Ms. Manjusha M. Bhosale as legal aid counsel for the second respondent and directed payment of her fees under the Legal Aid Scheme.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 132 days in filing a criminal appeal can be condoned.
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay.
Whether condoning the delay would cause prejudice to the respondents.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(2)(n)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 6

Subjects

condonation of delay
criminal appeal
legal aid
IPC 376
POCSO Act
sentence
appeal registration
interim application

Judgment

68-IA-476-2026 (CR).docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 476 OF 2026
IN
CR. APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2946 OF 2026

Vijay @ Yashwant Bhupal Sonavale … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

——————
Mr. Pratik G. Tare i/b. Mr. Sachin Y. Mane for the Applicant.
Dr. A.A. Takalkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Manjusha M. Bhosale for the Respondent No.2.
——————

Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

Date : 16th September 2026.

PER COURT :

1. Dr. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State, mentions this matter and

requests for taking up these Interim Applications out of turn on the ground

that the complainant is served in the matter and a request is received from

her for appointment of an advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme, as she is

unable to engage a private advocate.

2. At the request of Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP and with consent of

osk 1 of 5
68-IA-476-2026 (CR).docx

Mr. Pratik Tare, learned Advocate for the Applicant, these applications were

taken up out of turn.

3. Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP, suggests the name of Advocate Ms.

Manjusha M. Bhosale for appointment as an advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Ms. Manjusha M. Bhosale, learned Advocate, is present in Court and has

agreed to appear and represent Respondent No. 2 in these proceedings.

4. Respondent No. 2 has consented to the appointment of Ms. Manjusha

M. Bhosale, as her advocate. High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay

High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, to take note of appointment of Ms.

Manjusha M. Bhosale, learned Advocate, under the Legal Aid Scheme.

5. Mr. Pratik Tare, learned advocate for the Applicant states that copies of

the Applications would be furnished to Ms. Manjusha M. Bhosale, learned

Advocate for Respondent No.2, forthwith.

6. Ms. Manjusha M. Bhosale, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2,

submits that Interim Application No. 476 of 2026 being an application

seeking condonation of delay, the same be taken up post-lunch.

7. At the request of Ms. Manjusha M. Bhosale, learned Advocate for

Respondent No.2, and with consent of Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP and Mr.

Tare, learned Advocate for the Applicant, list this matter post-lunch.

osk 2 of 5
68-IA-476-2026 (CR).docx

8. Heard Mr. Pratik Tare, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Dr. Takalkar,

learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Manjusha Bhosale,

learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

9. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking condonation of delay of

132 days in filing Criminal Appeal.

10. The Applicant is an accused, who stands convicted for the offenses

punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Applicant is

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years.

11. The Applicant is in jail since 19 th May 2019 and continues to remain in

jail even after conviction awarded to him by Judgment and Order dated 13 th

January 2026.

12. Mr. Pratik Tare, learned Advocate for the Applicant, by referring to

paragraph No.4, submits that the delay in filing the Appeal is on account of

the Applicant being young and without any parents.

13. Ms. Manjusha Bhosale, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2

submits that the Application for condonation of delay does not contain any

cause, much less sufficient cause, to seek indulgence for condoning the delay

of 132 days. She submits that the reason sought to be put forth by the

osk 3 of 5
68-IA-476-2026 (CR).docx

Applicant is ignorance of law, which according to Ms. Manjusha Bhosale

cannot be a ground to condone the delay. She submits that the Applicant has

failed to explain delay of each and every day, thereby warranting dismissal of

the Application for condonation of delay.

14. Dr. Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State submits that

there is no cause shown by the Applicant to condone the delay of 132 days.

15. Perused the record.

16. Though Ms. Manjusha Bhosale, learned Advocate for the Respondent

No.2 and Dr. Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State, may be

justified in their contention that this Application lacks the details pertaining

to the cause for seeking condonation of delay, however, the fact remains that

the Applicant is in jail from 2019 and continues to be in jail after the

impugned Judgment and Order dated 13th January 2026. In such

circumstances, the Applicant who stands convicted of the offenses in Sessions

Special Case (Atro.) No. 47 of 19 would not gain by delaying the challenge to

his conviction. In such circumstances, the delay of 132 days in filing the

Appeal is required to be condoned. At any rate, no prejudice can be caused or

claimed by the Respondents if the delay is condoned and the Appeal against

conviction is heard on merits.

17. In view of the above, Interim Application No. 476 of 2026 is allowed.

osk 4 of 5
68-IA-476-2026 (CR).docx

18. The delay of 132 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.

19. The Registry is directed to register the Appeal.

20. Ms. Manjusha Bhosale, learned Advocate was today appointed to

represent the Respondent No.2 under the Legal Aid Scheme. She has assisted

this Court in this Interim Application by representing Respondent No.2. The

Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee, Kolhapur Circuit Bench, shall

quantify and pay the fees of Ms. Manjusha Bhosale, learned Advocate for the

Respondent No.2, as per the Legal Aid Scheme.

[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]

Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.09.16
19:50:49
+0530

osk 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…