Lalit Purushottam Shewale v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
In a subsequent bail application, the court rejected the plea for enlargement despite citing trial delays. The judgment directed the Sessions Judge to complete evidence recording by January 31, 2020, without unjustified adjournments.
What did the court decide?
Application rejected; Sessions Judge directed to complete evidence recording by January 31, 2020.
What the court decided
1/2 1 ba 684.2019.doc
Dusane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.684 OF 2019
Mr. Lalit Purushottam Shewale .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. Abhishek Yende for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the State.
Coram : Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav , J. Date : 3rd April 2019
P.C.:
1 This is a subsequent application seeking enlargement on
bail. The earlier application was rejected on 31st January 2018
whereby after arguing the matter at length, the learned counsel for the applicant had withdrawn the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2 The present application seems to be filed only on the
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted given the delay in trial commencement and adjournments despite previous withdrawal of the application.
Whether the Sessions Judge should be directed to complete evidence recording without further unwarranted adjournments.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Dusane
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
Sadhana S. Jadhav
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court