The High Court of Bombay heard J.M. Agarwal's intervention in Kishor Patil's anticipatory bail case, allowing intervention to implead the first informant as a respondent.
Allowed application for intervention; implead first informant as Respondent No. 2.
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 APPP 555-17=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2017 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 827 OF 2017
Jagdish M. Agarwal … Applicant/Intervenor
In the matter between:
Mr. Kishor Tarachand Patil
… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
… Respondent
Mr. Mandar Goswami for the Applicant/Intervenor. Mr. Abhijeet Kandarkar i/b Ergo Juris for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP or the Respondent/State.
CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2017
P.C.:
1 This is an application for intervention by the first informant in C.R. No. I- 97 of 2017 dated 12.04.2017 registered with Satpur Police Station, Dist. Nashik.
2 For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
3 Applicant in ABA No. 827 of 2017 is hereby directed to implead the first informant as Respondent No.2. The amendment be carried out within a period of one week from today and an amended copy of the application be served upon the
1/2
Sneha Chavan
1 APPP 555-17=.doc
learned Counsel for the first informant within the said stipulated period.
(A.S.GADKARI, J.)
2/2
Sneha Chavan
Jagdish M. Agarwal
Kishor Tarachand Patil
The State of Maharashtra
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
