501 REVN 475-26 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3271 OF 2026 Prabhakar Pandurang Devkar @ Prabakar P. Devekar and Anr. ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent **** Mr. Hemant Ingle a/w Mrunal Ingle and Adityaraj Singh Pawar h/f Prashant Goyal for the Applicants. Mr. Sagar Agarkar, APP for Respondent/State. **** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for Respondent/State. 2. By this revision application, the accused are challenging hand- written order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the concerned Magistrate thereby ‘filing application’ for discharge. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that roznama of said date (06.04.2026) indicates that though the accused were absent, their advocate was present. He submits that hand-written impugned order indicates that nobody was present and no argument was advanced on the application, which is contrary to the Roznama. He further submitted that as late as in February 2026, the envelope containing handwriting expert report was opened and therefore, the Sneha Chavan 1 SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2026.10.13 18:32:06 +0530 501 REVN 475-26 @.doc discharge application could not have argued before that. 4. Apparently, there is delay in filing revision application for which delay condonation application is filed stating that there is a delay of 134 days in filing application. 5. It is not disputed that the discharge application was filed in 2022 to which reply was filed by the Respondent/State in 2024 and thereafter, the application was pending for almost 2 years when the impugned order is passed on 06.04.2026. 6. From aforesaid dates, it is clear that discharge application was pending for long time. However, considering the wording of the impugned order, it only indicates that the application is filed and not rejected. It is not stated in so many words that it is rejected. It is also seen that the impugned order is not on merits. Hence, there is no reason to interfere at this stage. 7. With the aforesaid observations, delay condonation application and revision application, both are disposed of. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Sneha Chavan 2