Dismissed

Bittu @ Anil Chimaji Lashkare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Oct 2013APPLN/4261/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Aurangabad dismissed two criminal applications as withdrawn by applicants on instructions, directing Additional Sessions Judge to dispose of pending Sessions Case within four months to address custodial period concerns.

What did the court decide?

Criminal applications dismissed as withdrawn; Additional Sessions Judge directed to dispose of Sessions Case within four months.

Bittu @ Anil Chimaji Lashkare Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4292/2013

¶5

(Ravindra Baban Kale Vs. The State of Mah.)

¶6

WITH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4261/2013
(Bittu @ Anil Chimaji Lashkare Vs. The State of Mah.)

¶8

Office Notes, office Memoranda of

¶9

Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or Directions and Registrar’s orders

¶10

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶11

Mr.SL Ladda and Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocates for respective applicant/s in respective Criminal Applications; Mr.MM Neralikar, APP for State.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL J

¶14

DATE :22nd October, 2013.

¶15

1) Heard Both the learned Counsel for the applicants and learned APP for State.

¶16

2) On instructions, both the learned Counsel withdraw respective criminal applications. Permitted. Dismissed as withdrawn.

¶17

3) The respective applicants are in jail for 25 months. The Sessions Case, according to them, is ripe, however, charge is not yet framed.

¶18

4) Report from the learned Judge received today, disclose that Accused got matter adjourned from 22.11.2012 to 28.8.2013.

¶19

5) Considering the custody period of the applicants/accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dealing with Sessions Case No.7/2012, pending on his file, arising out of Crime No.I-186/2011, of police station,

¶20

¶21

Newasa, shall ensure to dispose of the same
within a period of four months on receiving
a writ of this Court.

¶22

6) The accused/applicants shall not protract the trial. If accommodation is sought by them, the period of four months shall automatically be extended for that duration.

¶23

7) The prosecution shall also not seek unreasonable accommodation from the learned Judge.

¶24

8) Liberty to apply, if the Sessions Trial is not concluded within the time schedule.

¶25

(K.U.CHANDIWAL)

¶26

 JUDGE

¶27

 bdv/

Bittu @ Anil Chimaji Lashkare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bittu @ Anil Chimaji Lashkare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramprasad Wamanrao Kadam (Bordikar) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jawaharlal Motilal Gandhi Vs Ghanshyam Ramchandra Varma

Santosh Balabhau Bajade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Baban Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alkarani Pradnya Kamble Vs Dr. Pradnya Taterao Kamble and Anr.

Sk. Mukhtyar @ Mukhtya Hatti Sk. Yusuf Vs the State of Maharashtra