In the absence of the applicant's counsel appearing for arguments, the High Court of Bombay rejected the third bail application, noting no material against the applicant was contended and no oral justification was advanced.
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
BA-602.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 602 OF 2013
SURAJ APPASAHEB PATIL
.. APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..
RESPONDENT
None for the applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State
CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 25/06/2013
P.C.
None appears for the applicant, when called out.
applicant before this court. It is seen that the bail application No. 1873 of 2013 was withdrawn in the course of arguments.
It was on 15/1/2013. Thereafter another bail application was made and when it appeared on board on 14/3/2013, an adjournment was sought for by the counsel for the applicant.
1/2
2
BA-602.13
The matter then appearrd on board on 1/4/13 when the counsel for the applicant did not appear.
no material against the applicant. Under the circumstances, and since no oral arguments are advanced in support of bail application, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
md.saleem
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-appearance of the applicant justifies rejection of the bail application in the absence of oral arguments.
SURAJ APPASAHEB PATIL
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ABHAY M. THIPSAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
