Dismissed

Prashant Popat Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2014BA/1146/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant filed a second bail application arguing trial was incomplete. Court, noting trial had commenced and delay due to lack of production, did not entertain the application but directed authorities to ensure prisoner production and expedite trial. Application rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; directed to cooperate with proceedings; authorities to ensure prompt production of accused.

Prashant Popat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

ba114614

ybg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1146 of 2014

¶6

Prashant Popat Jadhav .. Applicant - Versus - The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

Mr.V.V.Purwant with Mr.Sachin Deokar for applicant Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State

¶8

CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 21 st August 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] Heard Mr.Purwant for the applicant and Mrs.Mane, APP for State- respondent. The applicant is seeking bail on the ground that the trial is not yet over.

¶11

2] Accordingly a report was called by this Court from the trial court. The report is received from the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in the Sessions Case No.12 of 2013 (State Vs. Prashant Popat Jadhav). It shows that charge is framed and two witnesses are examined on 3^rd July 2014. However on 25^th July 2014 on the ground of no instructions, the defence lawyer withdrew his vakalatnama and, therefore, the trial could not proceed. Now the matter is fixed on 30^th August 2014.

¶12

¶13

ba114614

¶14

3] This is a second application for bail by the applicant on the ground that the trial is not complete. However, on the basis of the report a gist of which is mentioned above, as the trial has commenced, I am not entertaining this application. However, the accused is directed to cooperate with the proceedings so that the trial can be expedited. The learned Judge is directed to take the matter day to day.

¶15

4] It appears from the report that the accused was not produced on number of dates though the witnesses were present and for that reason also the trial could not proceed. The learned Principal District Judge, Satara is hereby directed to have a meeting with the Superintendent of Police, Satara so that proper escort can be arranged for production of all under trial prisoners before the respective sessions court at 10.45 a.m. to facilitate smooth functioning of the sessions court. The present application is rejected.

¶16

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)

Prashant Popat Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Popat Jadhav 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

Mehatab Abdul Rashid Mansuri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangita Sidram Minagule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhondappa Kundalik Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Puja Prashant Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaso @ Tatya Appaso Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Popat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra