Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 22, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected a bail application filed by Lallu Prasad Chaturvedi, deeming it infructuous after the court rejected a related application to condone the delay in filing an appeal.

Lallu Prasad Chaturvedi had filed two applications: one to condone the delay in filing an appeal against a conviction judgment and sentence order (M.A. No. 793/2022) and another to stay the conviction judgment and sentence order (Bail Application No. 998/2022).

Details of the Applications and Court’s Decision:

The appellant, Chaturvedi, sought to appeal a conviction but was beyond the permissible time limit for filing. He filed an application to condone this delay (M.A. No. 793/2022). Simultaneously, he filed a bail application (B.A. No. 998/2022) seeking a stay on the conviction and sentence pending the appeal.

Additional Sessions Judge M.S. Kulkarni, presiding over the court, rejected the delay condonation application (M.A. No. 793/2022).

“Application bearing No.793/2022 was filed to condone the delay to file appeal against the conviction judgment and sentence order and in respect of that conviction judgment and order this application to stay the conviction judgment and order. But court has rejected application No.793/2022,” Judge Kulkarni stated in the order.

As a result of the rejection of the delay condonation application, the appeal could not be registered. Consequently, the bail application, which was contingent on the appeal being registered, was rendered infructuous.

“When Appeal cannot be registered, this application is infructuous, so it is also rejected,” Judge Kulkarni concluded.

Outcome:

The court rejected the bail application (B.A. No. 998/2022) as infructuous.

Implications of the Decision:

This decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal proceedings. When an appeal cannot be registered due to a failure to condone delay, any associated applications, such as a bail application seeking a stay on conviction, become irrelevant and are liable to be rejected. This ruling underscores the court’s adherence to procedural rules and its focus on ensuring that appeals are filed within the prescribed time limits.