The petitioner moved a criminal writ petition. The court recorded instructions that the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. On these terms, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
Ladda
33-wp-351-13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 351 of 2013.
Rahul Vithal Ganekar Vs
The State of Maharashtra & ors
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr A.K.Singh , Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mrs A.S. Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
CORAM :- P.V. HARDAS & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED:10th APRIL, 2013.
P. C. :-
(1) The learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(A.R. JOSHI, J) (P.V.HARDAS, J)
1/1
Rahul Vithal Ganekar
The State of Maharashtra
P. V. Hardas
A. R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
