In this criminal application, the applicant, an under-trial, sought expedited trial and early hearing. The Court found the purpose served as the charge had been framed and trial dates fixed. The application was dismissed.
None. Application dismissed noting trial already proceeding with dates fixed.
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.
17-apln16.13.sxw
ssm 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2013
Raju Vishnu Avhad ....Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent.
None for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the Respondent.
CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2013
P.C.:
By this Application, the Applicant under trial, requested
for expediting the trial and early hearing. The report dated 25 June 2013 is received from the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan informing that the charge is already framed, witness summons are issued, the matter is part heard. He has quoted several dates of the trial in the matter and the next date was 3 July 2013. Thus, the purpose of expediting the trial is served. Nothing survives in the Criminal Application, dismissed.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.)
1/1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to expedite the trial and grant early hearing in a pending criminal matter.
Raju Vishnu Avhad
The State of Maharashtra
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
