In a criminal application filed by an applicant convicted under a criminal appeal, the High Court rejected the prayer for stay as no exceptional case was established based on the evidence of the injured.
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.
1.2APPA.86.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 86 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2005.
(Umesh Laxman Jadhav & another .vs. The State of Maharashtra) (Applicant : Umesh Laxman Jadhav)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Mr. Sumit G. Joshi, Advocate for applicant, Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for respondent,
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2017.
The applicant has approached this Court praying for stay of conviction.
Heard Mr. Sumit G. Joshi, learned Counsel for applicant and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for respondent.
By now it is a settled principle of law that the prayer for stay to the conviction can be granted only in an exceptional case. The perusal of the evidence of the injured would reveal that no case is made out to bring it under the ambit of exceptional case.
The Criminal Application is, therefore, rejected.
Judge Judge
J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer for stay of conviction in an exceptional case is made out.
Umesh Laxman Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
B.R. GAVAI
KUM. INDIRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
