In a bail application under Section 437 CrPC, the court refused to enlarge bail during the trial as six prosecution witnesses were examined. The Sessions Court was instructed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
None. The application was disposed of without granting bail.
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.
8 ba 221.2018.doc
1/1
Dusane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2018
Deepak Ashok More .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant Jadhav, APP for the State. Mr. R.L. Patil, PSI, Chavni police station, Malegaon
Coram : Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav , J. Date : 13th July, 2018
P.C.:
trial has commenced and the prosecution has examined six
witnesses. It would not be appropriate to consider an application for enlargement on bail in the midst of the trial.
endevour to dispose of the matter as early as possible.
( Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav , J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail application should be considered while trial has commenced.
Deepak Ashok More
The State of Maharashtra
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
