Disposed

Rajabhau S/O Dagadu Kumbhar v. the State of Maharshtra and Other

Bombay HC8 Sept 2016APPLN/1185/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court noted that a common order dated 29.8.2016 inadvertently omitted Criminal Application No. 1185 of 2016. It directed that the order apply to both applications, extended the time to file a discharge application for the omitted number by two weeks, and disposed of the current motion.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29.8.2016 treated as applying to Criminal Application No. 1185 of 2016; time for discharge extended by two weeks; motion disposed of.

Rajabhau S/O Dagadu Kumbhar Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

crap1185.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1185 OF 2016

¶5

Rajabhau s/o Dagadu Kumbhar...Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and others...Respondents

¶6

.....

¶7

Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate h/f
Shri V.S.Undre, advocate for the applicant
Shri A.R.Borulkar, A.P.P. for respondents

¶8

.....

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1165 OF 2016

¶10

Vilas Manmath Chaudhary...Applicant
VERSUS

¶11

The State of Maharashtra
and others...Respondents

¶12

.....

¶13

Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate h/f
Shri V.S.Undre, advocate for the applicant
Shri A.R.Borulkar, A.P.P. for respondents

¶14

.....

¶15

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE

¶16

AND

¶17

SANGITRAO S.PATIL, JJ.

¶18

 DATED: 8.9.2016

¶19

2crap1185.16

¶20

PER COURT :

¶21

The matters are moved for speaking to

¶22

minutes. Not on Board. Taken on Board.

¶23

2.Learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that in fact this Court on
29.8.2016 passed common order in Criminal
Application No. 1165 of 2016 and also in Criminal
Application No. 1185 of 2016. However,

¶24

inadvertently while mentioning the number of
Criminal Application only 1165 of 2016 is written.

¶25

3.We have heard the learned counsel

¶26

appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the respondents/State. It appears

¶27

that though both the applications are arising out
of the same crime, inadvertently No.1185 of 2016
remained to be mentioned.

¶28

4.In that view of the matter, the order,
dated 29.8.2016 be treated as the order in
Criminal Application No. 1185 of 2016 also.
However, time to file the application for
discharge stands extended for further two weeks
from today.

¶29

3crap1185.16

¶30

5. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy

¶31

of this order.

¶32

6. Criminal Application No. 1185 of 2016 also

¶33

stands disposed of.

¶34

7. Motion stands disposed of.

¶35

 (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶36

dbm/crap1185.16

Rajabhau S/O Dagadu Kumbhar v. the State of Maharshtra and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajabhau S/O Dagadu Kumbhar v. the State of Maharshtra and Other

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

Digambar S/O Krushna Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra S/O Lilachand Patil and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sardar Bashirkhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijaysing S/O Nathesing Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Shaikh Raju S/O. Shaikh Mehboob and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Purbhaji Shinde and Others