Brief order rejecting a bail application which was previously rejected earlier. The court declined to rehear on identical contentions and expedited the trial.
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.
1/2 (2)BA-534-13
Tilak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.534 of 2013
Vishal @ Sonu Rajendra Srivastav ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/b Mr.Sandeep Dere, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the State
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED : JULY 2, 2013
P.C.
1 Heard Mr.S.V. Marwadi, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, learned APP for the State.
2 The applicant’s previous application for bail was rejected by this Court on 11 March 2013 after hearing the counsel for the applicant. The case put forth by the Investigating Agency, as well as the contentions advanced on behalf of the applicant were duly considered, and it is thereafter that the Court concluded that no case for releasing the applicant on bail, was made out. I am not inclined to have a second look on the matter based on the same contentions and the same material.
2/2 (2)BA-534-13
3 In any case, the trial has been already ordered to be expedited.
5 Liberty to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within a period of nine months from today.
( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in the existing circumstances.
Vishal @ Sonu Rajendra Srivastav
The State of Maharashtra
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
