High Court Bench dismissed the intervention application by Santosh Birajdar, holding that the application does not survive based on observations in Sudeep Kumar Bafna (AIR 2014 SC 1745).
The intervention application stands disposed of accordingly.
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.
APPP 661-14.odt
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.661 OF 2014 (For Intervention)
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1750 OF 2014
Santosh Bhimashankar Birajdar .Intervener
In the matter between
Santosh alias Appasha Hanmanth .Applicants Birajdar & ors
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Mr.Ritesh Thobade, Advocate, for the Applicants
Mrs Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for the Respondent - State Mr.V.V.Purwant, Advocate, for the Intervener
P.C.
. Heard.
Page 1 of 2
APPP 661-14.odt
Sudeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and another , reported in AIR 2014 SC 1745 and
particularly, observations made in para No.25, the application does not survive. However, the intervener is at liberty to exercise the rights within four corners of Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Page 2 of 2
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherReferred¶2
Sudeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 2014 SC 1745 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
