In this adjudication, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor observed that under amended provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, an appeal lies against bail orders. Consequently, the applicant was permitted to withdraw the anticipatory bail application.
Application dismissed as withdrawn.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.
905.ABA200_2017.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 200 OF 2017
Surekha Machindra Jadhav & Anr. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
... Applicants
... Respondent
Mr. Nitesh J. Mohite h/f. Mr. Jaydeep Mane, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP, for Respondent – State
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 2nd February, 2017.
P.C.:
It is pointed out by the learned APP that the order of rejecting the anticipatory bail passed in the offence pertaining to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is challenged. As per the amended Section 14A(3), the Appeal lies against the order passed by the Special Court including the bail order. Hence, the learned counsel is allowed to withdraw this Anticipatory Bail Application.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
1 / 1
Surekha Machindra Jadhav & Anr.
The State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhatar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
