Criminal appeal where counsel for the applicant argued for relief under Section 407 CrPC, 1973. The single judge bench held that invoking Section 407 was not justified and rejected the application.
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.
ISM
1 902.204.19 appln.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 204 OF 2019
Rakesh Tukaram Koshti .....Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
.....Respondent
Mr. Nikhil Pawar for the applicant Mr. A. R. Kapadnis APP for the State
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 6, 2019.
P.C.
Heard Shri. Nikhil Pawar, learned counsel appointed by this Court to assist in the case in hand so also learned APP.
2 After having heard respective counsel for some time and having regard to pleadings in para 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, invoking of provisions of Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be justifed. Application is rejected.
3 The learned counsel appointed by this Court be paid professional fees as per Schedule.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the invocation of provisions of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is justified in the present case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Tukaram Koshti
The State of Maharashtra
Nitin W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
