Bombay High Court: The instant interim application was filed by the applicant (accused) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal for grant of bail. A Single Judge Bench of S.M Modak, J., held that as the delay was for 118 days which was less than 180 days as per the proviso of Section 14(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC & ST Act’) and the ground of apprehension of the applicant of delay in the trail constituted sufficient cause for its condonation. Therefore, the Court allowed the interim application by condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Background
The applicant, an undertrial prisoner, along with other co-accused persons was facing trial for commission of an offence under Sections 302, 143, 147, 149, 506, 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 6 of the SC & ST Act.
After the trial started, 17 prosecution witnesses were examined and during its pendency, the co-accused applied for recalling some of the prosecution witnesses and even after the transfer of the earlier presiding officer, no new presiding officer was posted there and so, the trial slowed down. Therefore, the appellant applied for regular bail before the Sessions Court but the same was rejected.Aggrieved by the same, the appellant with a delay of 118 days, filed an appeal before the present Court for the condonation of delay.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court referred to the two proviso of Section 14(3) of the SC & ST Act which stated that an appeal could be entertained after the expiry of ninety days on satisfaction about sufficient cause while as per the second proviso, no appeal could be entertained after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days. Thus, a delay of more than 90 days but less than 180 days could be condoned by the Court if there was sufficient cause to explain the delay.
The Court opined that in criminal jurisprudence, the right of speedy trial was recognised as a fundamental right and just because the applicant had participated in the trial at one stage, at other stage it did not lose a right to ask for bail. The principles of trial of suit about waiver/res judicata could not be applied in such contingency. Furthermore, the Court observed that in the instant case the applicant had participated in the trial, but the circumstances caused apprehension in the mind of the applicant that the trial would be delayed, which constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Accordingly, the Court opined that the delay was for 118 days, which was within the prescribed time of 180 days as per the SC & ST Act. Therefore, the Court allowed the interim application by condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
[Amit Kailas Varghade v. State of Maharashtra, I.A. 2595of 2025, decided on: 8-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Applicant- Pushpa Ganediwala, Aniket B. Rathod, Anshu Agrawal, Pradyumna Agrawal, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents- Ashok S. Gawai, APP; Jai Kanade, Prachiti Naik, Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
