The High Court of Bombay dismissed an application for stay of orders in two criminal writ petitions, noting that the underlying trials were either in progress or yet to commence.
Application for stay of operation of orders rejected.
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 |
JUDIC |
ATURE AT |
BOMBAY | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APPELLATE | JU | RISDICTION | ||||
| CRIMINAL | WRIT PETITION |
NO. |
234 O |
F 2008 |
||
| Prak | ash Pr | alhad Patil | ..Petitioner | |||
| Vs. | ||||||
| The and |
ors. |
State | of | ..Respondents | Maharashtra | |
| Mr. petit |
V.T. ioner. |
Tulpule with Mr. | Umesh Mankapure for | |||
| Mr. Mha |
Ravi ispurk |
Kadam, Advocate ar, APP for State. |
General, with Mr. D.S. | |||
| Mr. Mun Mr.S |
dargi, .B. S |
K.K. Senior Advocate i/ hetye for respondent |
Singhvi, Senior by Mr. Sudatta Patil and no.7. |
Advocate, | with Mr. |
A.P. |
| Mr. resp |
Nitin ondent |
Jamdar i/by Mr. no.8. |
Vijay Killedar for | |||
| CRIMINAL W | WITH RIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2 |
008 | ||||
| Mr. | Umesh | Balasaheb Kalabho Vs. |
r | ..Petitioner | ||
| The and |
State o ors. |
f Maharashtra | ..Respondents | |||
| Mr. | Sudhir | Halli for petitioner. | ||||
| Mr. Pai, |
Ravi APP f |
Kadam, Advocate or State. |
General, with Mrs. A.S. |
:2:
CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ.
Dated: July 04, 2008.
P.C.:
. In both these petitions, after the judgment
| was | pronoun | ced, | Mr. | Mhaispurkar, | the | l | earned | APP, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| made | an | oral a |
pplication | to stay |
the | ope | ration of |
the |
| orders | for so |
me time. |
W |
e have |
noted | that | the trial |
in |
| Sessions | Case | No.591 | of | 2006 bef |
ore | the | Sessions | Court |
| at | Pune | is in |
progress | and the |
trial | in | Sessions | Case |
No. 41 of 2006 pending before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge at Islampur has yet to commence.
Hence, the application for stay is hereby
rejected.
(R.Y. Ganoo,J.)
(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
Prakash Pralhad Patil
Umesh Balasaheb Kalabhor
State of Maharashtra
B.H. Marlapalle
R.Y. Ganoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
