The High Court rejected the third bail application, accepting the trial court's view and deeming PW-3's evidence substantial. The court allowed expedited hearing of the pending appeal.
Bail application rejected; appeal hearing expedited.
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.
appa1342.10.sxw
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Application No. 1342 of 2010 IN Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2008
Dadasaheb Balaram Jadhav ..Applicant
v/s. The State of Maharashtra
..Respondent
Mr. Rahul Thakur – advocate for the applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre – APP for the State.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ
DATED :- DECEMBER 21, 2010.
P.C.
Heard Counsel for the Applicant and Learned APP of the State.
first two bail applications essentially were on the ground that the Applicant’s
mother was likely to be operated. However, the said two
appa1342.10.sxw
2
applications came to be rejected in terms of order dated 22nd September, 2008 and 10th August, 2009 respectively. Now the Applicant intends to pursue his present bail application on merits.
appa1342.10.sxw
3
caption ‘convicts in jail’. The category of caption ‘convicts in jail’ is
already an expedited category as per the present assignment. Ordered accordingly.
(A.P.BHANGALE, J)
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves bail in the circumstances and whether PW-3's evidence should be discarded.
Whether the hearing of the appeal should be expedited.
Dadasaheb Balaram Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
AM KHANWILKAR
AP BHANGALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
