IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.72 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 586 of 2002 Kundalik Govind Kamble & Ors. .. Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr Ujwal Agandsurve, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs P. P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. Mr Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is criminal application filed for restoration of earlier dismissal order of Revision Application No. 586 of 2002. The said revision application was dismissed by this Court on 26th March,2004. The date is very significant inasmuch as present restoration application filed in the year 2009, after lapse of five years. Dismissal of revision application was on the ground of not removing the office objection. 3. Certain facts of the present case by which it can be ascertained how the delay is caused in the present case, can be narrated. Initially, all the applicants were facing the trial for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences. They were convicted by the Court and against which criminal appeal was filed. 4. Criminal appeal was preferred in the year 2002 and it was dismissed confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 3.4.1999. Thereafter, in the same year 2002 criminal revision application No. 586 of 2002 came to be filed before this Court and it came to be dismissed as mentioned earlier on 26th March, 2004 by this Court for not removing office objections. 5. It is factual position as narrated on behalf of the petitioners that when they were arrested in the follow up action after dismissal of criminal revision before this Court, they knew regarding dismissal of their case. This, per se, indicates that the petitioners had committed grave latches and as such did not bother regarding criminal revision since the year 2002 as they had already secured bail and were enjoying liberty. 6. In the present criminal application, composite prayers are made. Firstly, for condonation of delay in preferring this restoration application i.e. delay of about four years. Secondly, releasing the applicants on the same bail which they were earlier enjoying and thirdly main prayer as to restoration of dismissal of criminal revision application No. 586 of 2002. 7. Considering the circumstances, as stated above and considering the laxity on the part of the applicants, though there is delay in filing such restoration application after four years, this Court is inclined to condone the delay. However, looking to the specific circumstances and considering that after securing the bail through out though the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. was since the year 2000, it would be in the fitness of the situation that the present applicant cannot be enlarged on bail, though the criminal revision application can be admitted. 8. In the result, delay in filing the present restoration application is condoned. Criminal Revision Application No.586 of 2002 is restored to the file. Prayer for the bail is rejected. Criminal Application No.72 of 2009 is disposed of. 9. Revision Application No. 586 of 2002 to appear on board in due course for final hearing before the appropriate Bench. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)