IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 373 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 3863 OF 2009 STATE ... Applicant Versus RAJANISH SINGH @ RAJU BHAYAM BHAGEL AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the State. Ms. V. D'Souza, Advocate for Respondents. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 21st February, 2011 P.C.: We have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. Applicant-State seeks condonation of around 105 days of delay occurred in filing appeal against acquittal. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for respondents, we have seen the Judgment of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 27/2006. Respondents-Accused, were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. On their trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Panaji acquitted them for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Their bail bonds have been cancelled. It is this Judgment that has been challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. We have considered the grounds for delay. Learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents, opposes this application, even though reply has not been filed. According to her ground is not justified and she relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Bench in the case of State V/S Vincent Diogo Gonsalves & 6 Ors., reported in 1990(1) Goa Law Times (316). It appears that criminal miscellaneous application no. 118/1989 was filed before the learned Single Bench of this Court, seeking delay of around 33 days. There were also other criminal miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay. We have seen that, in those applications, there was delay of around 33 to 34 days. The learned Single Judge being unsatisfied with the grounds raised in the applications, ultimately arrived at a conclusion that explanation tendered was not satisfactory and rejected the applications for condonation of 33 to 34 days delay which occurred in filing the proceedings. 4. In the case on hand, we have considered the serious charges levelled on the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2 and the grounds seeking condonation of delay for 105 days. In our opinion, explanation tendered is just and proper. Hence, delay of around 105 days needs to be condoned. 5. Delay of 105 days in filing appeal against acquittal stands condoned. Accordingly, application is allowed and disposed of. Let the appeal be registered. Stand over to 21st March, 2011. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. F. M. REIS, J. EV