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.
Tikam
APPR 605 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPILCATION No. 605 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 435 OF 2016
A. R. Satish ….Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent
Mr.Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Mr. Mayur Bhojwani i/b. M.K. Ambalal and Co. for the Applicant Mr. P.H. Gaikwad – Patil, APP for the State
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 11 JANUARY, 2018.
P.C. :-
1/2
Tikam
APPR 605 of 2017
submitted that the aforesaid provisions are not attracted to the present case and in the peculiar circumstances, the date may be fixed for hearing the matter.
into consideration the fact that the Applicant is a bank employee, the revision application can be directed to be fixed for hearing. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
[PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]
Tikam
2/2
A. R. Satish
The State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
