VINOD S/O GOVINDA TAMBEKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO, PS UMRED
APPA/695/2025 · 2025-08-12
Shri Anil L Pansare, Shri M M Nerlikar
Criminal Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 53711 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 53711 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 appa 695.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No. 695 of 2025 in CRIMINAL APPEAL ST. NO. 6497 OF 2025 [Vinod s/o Govinda Tambekar vs. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S. Umred, Post & Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - - Mr. K. R. Lule, APP for the State CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ. DATED : 12-08-2025. None for the applicant. Perused the application. This is an application for condonation of delay of 110 days in preferring appeal against conviction. In paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the application, it is stated that the applicant has moved the application for getting legal help from the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur and accordingly, Mr. Samir S. Das, Panel Advocate is appointed to represent him. He further submits that there is a delay, which is bona fide, which can be reflected in paragraph no. 4. As the appeal is against conviction, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Registry is directed to register the appeal. Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 Perused the judgment. Admit.
2025:BHC-NAG:7914-DB
2 appa 695.2025 Call R & P. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the State/respondent. Later on, Mr. S. S. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant appears and submits that he does not want to press the application for suspension of sentence. Hence, the application for suspension of sentence is disposed of as not pressed. (M. M. NERLIKAR, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) wasnik