Partly allowed
Vithal Nanasaheb Aher v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Bombay HCAPPLN/295/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 Cri.A-295-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 295 OF 2017
Vitthal Nanasaheb Aher ...APPLICANT
versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.R. Shirsat, Advocate holding for Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for applicant Mr. S.G. Karlekar, APP for Respondent State
.... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 21st FEBRUARY, 2017. Order :-
in case the charge is not already framed. In case, the applicant approaches the concerned Court within four weeks from today by
2 Cri.A-295-17
filing appropriate application for discharge, the concerned Court to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing such application on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Sd/Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
MTK
Vitthal Nanasaheb Aher
The State of Maharashtra
K.K. Sonawane
S.S. Shinde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court