IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST.) NO. 406 OF 2010 PRALHAD TUKARAM DANGE .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT Mr. Manoj Kadam for the applicant Mr. Rajesh More, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RAJESH G. KETKAR , JJ. DATED : 3/8/2010 P.C. Appeal filed by the co-accused being Appeal No. 882 of 2004 is admitted. Office noting shows that record and proceedings in connection with the said appeal have come to this court. 2. There is 5 years and 288 days’ delay in filing this appeal. Following explanation is offered by the applicant for the delay in filing the appeal: “Since the impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2004, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 26.07.2004. However, as the applicant has been behind bars since prior to conviction till date. Applicant could not arrange for the amount required to cover expenses and professional fees of Advocate. Applicant hails from village Sakharale, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli. One Adv. Sunil V.Patil who also hails from the same village and he is practicing at Islampur was requested by relatives of applicant to see whether any Advocate of Mumbai is ready to file and work out appeal without charging professional fees. The said Adv. Sunil V. Patil had been to Mumbai for his personal work in the1st week of May 2010. At that time the said Adv. Sunil V. Patil visited bar room of High Court, where he came across with present Advocate-on-record, who agreed to file and work out appeal without charging professional fees. Thereafter, the Criminal Appeal has been filed without further delay.” 3. In our opinion, the above explanation is acceptable. Taking into consideration the fact that record and proceedings have been brought to this court, we feel that delay should be condoned. Hence delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. 4. Bail application be placed for hearing on 17/8/2010. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.)