Partly allowed

Daniel Christopher Bauer v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Apr 2013WP/1055/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed for expediting a criminal trial instituted based on Crime No.390 of 2012, the High Court partly allowed the petition. The Court directed the ACMM, 9th Court, Bandra, to expedite the trial. The prayer requesting further relief was dismissed as the counsel allowed moving an application in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned ACMM, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai to expedite the trial instituted on the basis of the FIR registered vide Crime No.390/2012.

Daniel Christopher Bauer Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

wp1055.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1055 OF 2013

¶6

Daniel Christopher Bauer )....Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra )....Respondent

¶7

Mr.Nand Kishore i/by HSA Advocates for the petitioner.

¶8

Mrs.P.H.Kantharia APP for the respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ

¶10

DATE : 15 th April, 2013.

¶11

PC :-

¶12

1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.

¶13

2 This is a petition at the instance of the petitioner by which

¶14

the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the learned ACMM, 9^th Court, Bandra, Mumbai to expedite the criminal trial which has been instituted on the basis of an offence registered vide Crime No.390 of 2012. The said case is pending on the file of the learned ACMM, 9^th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

¶15

3 In that light of the limited relief which the petitioner has sought for and in the light of the statement made by the learned

¶16

2 wp1055.13

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner that in respect of prayer clause-(b) to the petition, the petitioner would move an appropriate application before the trial Court seeking the relief which the petitioner has sought for as prayer clause-(b) to the petition we have heard the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the petitioner and according to us the relief which the petitioner has prayed for in respect of prayer clause-(a) can certainly be granted. Hence, we partly allow the petition and direct the learned ACMM, 9^th Court, Bandra, Mumbai to expedite the trial instituted on the basis of the FIR registered vide Crime No.390/2012. This petition is dismissed in so far as relief as prayed in prayer clause-(b) to the petition accepting the statement of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that an appropriate application would be moved before the trial Court seeking the relief as prayer clause-(b) to the petition.

¶18

4 Rule is thus, made absolute with no order as to costs.

¶19

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (P.V.HARDAS,J)

¶20

3 wp1055.13

Daniel Christopher Bauer v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daniel Christopher Bauer v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prijesh Arunkumar Kurari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harishchandra Datta Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harilal Mevalal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra