914- IA-83-2026 (CR).docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2026 IN CR. APPEAL (ST.) NO. 439 OF 2026 Sadashiv Ashok Sanade … Applicant Versus. The State of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents ----- Ms. Tanvi Tapkire for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Preeti Dawada, Appointed Advocate for the Respondent No.2. (Appointed under Legal Aid) . ------- Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. Date : 19th August 2026. PER COURT : 1. Notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 (victim) on 10th February 2026. 2. Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P., submits that Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court and has sought assistance under the Legal Aid, as she is unable to afford a private lawyer. Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P., therefore suggests the appointment of Advocate Ms. Preeti Dawada, who is present in the Court, osk 1 of 3 914- IA-83-2026 (CR).docx to appear for Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has consented to the appointment of Ms Preeti Dawada. 3. Advocate Ms. Preeti Dawada is hereby appointed to represent the Respondent No.2, under the Legal Aid Scheme. 4. Heard, Ms. Tanvi Tapkire, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Ms. Preeti Dawada for Respondent No. 3 and Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. 5. Ms. Tanvi Tapkire, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the present Application is for condonation of a delay of 367 days in filing the Criminal Appeal. She submits that the Applicant was convicted on 8th November 2024 in Special Case No. 69 of 2023. She states that the Applicant was in jail on the date of conviction. She submits that due to the difficulty faced by the Applicant while in jail, the Appeal could not be preferred within the prescribed time. She therefore requests condonation of delay. 6. Ms. Preeti Dawada, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, opposed the request for condonation of delay on the ground that the Applicant has failed to show any cause, let alone sufficient cause. She submits that the Applicant cannot take shelter in being in jail and ought to have availed the legal remedies in time. She submits that nothing prevented the Applicant from availing assistance under the Legal Aid Scheme immediately upon his conviction. She, therefore, opposes the request made by the learned Advocate osk 2 of 3 914- IA-83-2026 (CR).docx for the Applicant. 7. Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P., submits that the Applicant being in jail, the request for condonation of delay may be considered and the main matter may be heard on merits. 8. Perused the records. 9. In view of the statement made by Ms. Tanvi Tapkire, learned Advocate for the Applicant, that on the date of conviction, i.e. 8th November 2024 and even as on date, the Applicant continues to be in jail, I find sufficient cause in the reasons offered by the Applicant for condonation of delay. Considering the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay and the submissions made by Ms. Tanvi Tapkire, learned Advocate for the Applicant, the delay of 367 days in filing the Criminal Appeal is condoned. 10. Interim Application No. 83 of 2026 is allowed. Registry is directed to register the Appeal. [ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ] osk 3 of 3 OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2026.08.20 10:23:10 +0530