Order 030926appa460.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] NO. 460 OF 2025. Smt.Sunita Rajkumar Raut. -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri A.D. Tote, Advocate (Appointed) for the Applicant. Shri A.B. Badar, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State. Shri V. pandey, Advocate for Non-applicant Nos.2 to 5. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026. Heard. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 526 days in preferring appeal against acquittal. The judgment and order of acquittal is passed by the Special Judge, Bhandara in Special (Atro) Case No.8/2019 on 25.08.2023, whereby the non-applicant nos.2 to 5 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3[1][r] of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:11751 Order 030926appa460.25 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that son of the applicant was addicted to mobile and therefore, he was taken to rehabilitation centre, which caused the delay. He submitted that paragraph no.2 of her application states the reason for delay, wherein it is submitted that time was spent for collection of entire case papers and in making arrangement for legal information. Further that the applicant is poor and due to medical problems and education issues of her son, further delay was caused. The learned Counsel submits that applicant being a poor lady, approached the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur and handed over the documents to the said Office and accordingly the present Advocate is appointed by the said Committee who had filed the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. He submits that the delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate, and due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. He therefore, prays that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing Rgd. Order 030926appa460.25 3 for non-applicant nos.2 to 5 vehemently opposed the application by submitting that there is absolutely no explanation given by the applicant for such a huge delay of 526 days. Hence, unless and until cogent explanation is given by the applicant, the same cannot be condoned. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Thirungalingam .vrs. Lingeswaran and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093, to submit that in a routine manner the delay cannot be condoned, and therefore, in absence of an explanation from the applicant, the delay cannot be condoned, and therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. I have also heard the learned A.P.P. for the State. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the contents of the application seeking condonation of delay. The reasons are narrated in paragraph no.2 of the said application, which reads as under : “2. The applicant submits that after collecting the entire case papers and after making arrangement of legal information it takes long time and as appellant is poor and due to medical problems and educational issue of son. Appellant approached before the Legal Cell authority and handed over the documents to the office and Rgd. Order 030926appa460.25 4 thereafter they arranged the counsel. It is submitted that after hand over case due to medical problem and examination of son appellant not come for affidavit, So in this process the time has been spend. Hence, the delay if any caused is not deliberate and intentional one. Hence the delay of 502 days may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.” 6. The explanation tendered by the applicant is that time was required to be given for collecting entire case papers and making arrangement of legal information. It appears that the appellant is a poor lady and due to medical problems and educational issue of her son the delay is caused. At this juncture it is necessary to mention that it is not clear from the contents of the application as to what legal information was sought by the applicant, and further there is no material on record to show any medical or educational problem faced by applicant’s son. In such circumstances, a vague statement is made in paragraph no.2, without any documentary proof in support of the same. It is further to be noted that the delay is of 526 days, even though the Supreme Court has clarified that it is not the length of delay which is material, but, the explanation tendered for condonation of delay is important. However, from the above, neither there is sufficient any cause Rgd. Order 030926appa460.25 5 shown in paragraph no.2, nor there is any explanation given by the applicant. Even in respect of medical problem, nothing has been placed on record in support of the statement. So also for collection of legal papers also it is not stated in the application as to how much time was consumed. Thus, in paragraph no.2 a vague statement and vague explanation has been given by the applicant for the delay caused. 7. It would be apt to consider the judgment relied upon by the non-applicants in the case of Thirunagalingam (supra), more particularly paragraph nos.31 and 32 thereof, which reads as under : “31. It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the Rgd. Order 030926appa460.25 6 cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet.” 8. From the above quoited paragraphs, it is clear that it is the duty of the Court to first ascertain the bonafides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation of delay, and delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. Thus, considering the above observations and further that no explanation has been tendered by the applicant in her application, thereby failing to explain the delay of 526 days, hence, in absence of any cogent and convincing reason, the delay cannot be condoned. Criminal Application is accordingly rejected. 9. Fees of the appointed Counsel be determined and paid as per Rules. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 05/09/2026 11:21:27