Allowed withdrawal of bail application as charge was framed and prosecution witness was present. Directed trial court to complete evidence recording by November 30, 2015.
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.
9-ba-516-2015.doc
Vishal
BAIL APPLICATION NO.516 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.566 OF 2015
Nandkumar Ramchandra Jadhav ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Nitin Pradhan a/w. Ms. Suman Prasad i/b. Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. Manoj Patil, for the Intervener in APPP.No. 566 of 2015.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: JULY 28, 2015
P.C.:
. Without going into the merits of the matter, allowed to
withdraw the application as the charge is framed and the prosecution
witness is in the box.
applicant/accused that the charge is framed on 11th November, 2014
and prosecution witness No. 1 Mr. S.B. Pujari, an auditor stepped in
1 / 3
9-ba-516-2015.doc
the box on 27th January, 2015. He produced the notes of evidence. It shows that thereafter the evidence was recorded on four dates. Now the matter is fixed on 1st August, 2015. The learned prosecutor informs that witness did not remain present and therefore on last date the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli issued warrant against the witness.
2 / 3
9-ba-516-2015.doc
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
3 / 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow withdrawal of bail application proceedings
To expeditiously complete recording of evidence in the criminal trial
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nandkumar Ramchandra Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhaktar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
