The Court held that issuing notice and directing sureties under Section 390 CrPC presumes leave to appeal. The High Court allowed the criminal application, admitting the appeal with respondents waiving service.
Leave to file appeal granted on presumption; appeal admitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.3918 of 2007 (For Leave to file Appeal)
The State of Maharashtra.
.. .. Applicant (Orig. Complainant)
v/s.
Suresh Vishnu Patil & ors. .. Respondents (Orig.Accused Nos.1 to 6)
Ms.S.D . Shinde, APP for State. Mr.S.V. Gavand for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
Dated : 9th April 2008
P.C. :
2
it will be presumed that the Court has considered the matter
and granted leave to appeal.
ORDER
Leave granted.
Appeal admitted. Respondents waive service.
(F.I. REBELLO, J.)
(SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the issuance of notice and direction to take sureties under Section 390 CrPC constitutes grant of leave to appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Suresh Vishnu Patil & ors.
F.I. Rebello
V.K. Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
