Smt. Baby Dipak Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra

Smt. Baby Dipak Pawar ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Arfan Sait, Advocate appointed for the Applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the Respondent ­ State. ... ... CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 4, 2012. P.C. This is an Application for condonation of delay in filing Appeal. 2 Heard the learned Advocate appointed to represent the Applicant, who is in jail. The Applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with another accused. The co­accused has preferred criminal Appeal No.1378 of

#2004. The said Appeal is pending before this Court and it is in fact part heard. During the hearing of the Appeal No.1378 of 2004, the 2/2 appa1824­12 present Applicant addressed a letter to this Court stating that she be provided an advocate at the State cost. In view of the letter, we appointed Advocate Mr. Arfan Sait, who is on the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, to represent the Applicant­Appellant. He has accordingly filed an Appeal i.e. Appeal Stamp No.1322 of 2012. As there is delay of about eight years in preferring this Appeal, this Application has been preferred for condonation of delay. 3 In the present case, the co­accused has preferred an Appeal bearing Appeal No.1378 of 2004. The entire record and proceedings are before the Court i.e. the record is not destroyed and the record is very much before the Court. Looking the fact that the Applicant is lady accused, who has been in custody for about 10 years, the fact that the Applicant has preferred this Application through jail and, the fact that the record is available and the other facts and circumstances in this case, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. Accordingly delay is condoned. 4 Application is disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)