The High Court denied bail to the appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC due to overwhelming evidence. The appeal hearing was directed to be expedited.
Application for suspension of substantive sentence and bail dismissed; appeal hearing directed to be 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.
1
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (APPA) No.605 of 2012 In Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2012 Raju @ Rajendra v. The State of Maharashtra
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr D. A. Sonwane, Adv for appellant Mr R. S. Nayak, APP for State
Coram : P. V. HARDAS AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ
Dated : 9th October 2012
2
Obviously, this observation is a prima facie which is made by us at the stage of deciding present application and should not be construed as any finding on merit.
JUDGE
JUDGE
joshi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an appellant who has overwhelming evidence against him pending the decision of his appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raju @ Rajendra
The State of Maharashtra
P. V. Hardas
A. P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
