The petitioner argued that the present writ petition is infructuous as he had already been discharged by the trial court. The High Court accepted this submission and disposed of the petition accordingly.
The petition was disposed of on the ground that it had become infructuous due to the prior discharge of the petitioner.
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.
Rane
Tuesday, 14.2.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 992 OF 2016
Mr. Amit Satish Kumar @ Amit Satish Putran
…..Petitioner (Orig. Accused no.1)
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
…..Respondents
Mr. Pavan S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. N.S. Jain, APP for respondent no.1, State.
Mr. Gaurav Parkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 14th FEBRUARY, 2017.
P.C. :-
1). Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petition has become infructuous because the petitioner has since been discharged by the trial Court by the order dated 22nd November, 2016. The petition is accordingly disposed off.
(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)
Amit Satish Kumar
The State of Maharashtra
R.P. Sondurbaldota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
