The High Court disposed of Criminal Wpap. No. 184 of 2013 by rejecting the petition. The single-judge Bench held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Magistrate for discharge and was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
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.
Cri.W.P.184.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 184 OF 2013
Mubashir Ahemad Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad
..PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
The State of Maharashtra and another.
..RESPONDENTS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Latange A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. G.R. Ingole
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 11, 2013
P.C. :-
Heard.
( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )
sga/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal writ petition seeking discharge should be entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy exists.
Whether the petitioner has been provided an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Magistrate for discharge.
Mubashir Ahemad Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad
The State of Maharashtra
ABHAY M. THIPSAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
