Bombay High Court refuses to condone 650-day delay in appeal against acquittal

While refusing to entertain the State's appeal, bombay High Court refuses to condone 650-day delay in appeal against acquittal A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Mahendra Nerlikar at the Nagpur seat imposed costs of ₹50, 000 on the Anti Corruption Bureau, Yavatmal district.

Key points

• According to The Bombay High Court, the Department of Law and Judiciary had in January 2024 denied permission to file the appeal, terming the case unfit for appeal.
• According to The court, the delay in examining the application and the lack of bona fides was not justified by the nature of the case.
• The court held that the State failed to provide an explanation for the delay.
• The judge concluded that the delay and lack of bona fides did not merit condonation.
• "The action of directing to file frivolous appeal increased the pendency of this Court and is directly responsible for slowing down the delivery of justice, " the judge observed.

According to The Bombay High Court, the Department of Law and Judiciary had in January 2024 denied permission to file the appeal, terming the case unfit for appeal. File Photo Credit: The Hindu.

For context, the Bombay High Court has declined on Thursday (August 20, 2026) to condone a delay of 650 days in filing an appeal against acquittal in a Prevention of Corruption Act case, observing that the Department of Law and Judiciary must function independently of pressure from other State departments.

Though the DLJ issued a communication stating that the "instructions for filing of appeal is issued only at the department's risk, cost and consequences.", permission was eventually granted in July 2025.

According to Justice Nerlikar, the State could not explain why it took from August 2023 to July 2025 – a period of at least 1.7 years – to decide on whether the appeal should be filed.

In practice, the court held that the State failed to provide an explanation for the delay. According to The Bench, the DLJ carries a higher degree of responsibility in scrutinising proposals for proceedings before courts.

According to The court, the delay in examining the application and the lack of bona fides was not justified by the nature of the case. The Bench continued that the State could not claim the delay was caused by the Department's own negligence, citing the DLJ's communication dated July 15, 2025.

Notably, the judge concluded that the delay and lack of bona fides did not merit condonation.

For now, bombay High Court refuses to condone 650-day delay in appeal against acquittal remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.