The High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. because the applicant failed to appear in court despite a prior direction on 8th October 2013, rendering the application devoid of merit.
Criminal Application No. 4816 of 2013 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4816 OF 2013
VINOD ROOPSING KADAM VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate, i/b Mr. V.R.Dhorde, Adv., for applicant. Mr. K.G.Patil, AGP for respondent State. Mr.N.B.Narwade, Adv., to assist A.P.P.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: October 11th 2013
PER COURT :-
agp/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for anticipatory bail should be allowed when the applicant was not present before the court despite a prior direction to be present.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod Roopsing Kadam
The State of Maharashtra
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
