The High Court rejected criminal bail applications despite prior liberty because a charge was framed before the recent court order. It noted the accused's intentional non-cooperation and directed the Trial Court to assign amicus curie counsel and expedite the trial within six months.
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.
Cri. Appln. No. 939/17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
917 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 939 OF 2017
WITH APPLN/1073/2017
MACHHINDRA S/O PARSING VALAVI VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kadarale Nitin S. APP for Respondent/State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar Advocate for assisting to APP in CA No. 1073/17 : Mr. Girish Nagori
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : April 21, 2017.
ORDER :
Cri. Appln. No. 939/17
2
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether liberty granted in a previous application remains valid after a charge is framed ex-parte due to accused's non-cooperation.
Machhindra s/o Parsing Valavi
State of Maharashtra
T.V. Nalawade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
