Dismissed

Vaibhav S/O Kailas Raut v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Deolapar Dist.Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC6 Aug 2021APEAL/294/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was dismissed as infructuous because the appellant was arrested during its pendency. Consequently, pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.294/2021 disposed of as infructuous; pending application(s) disposed of accordingly.

Vaibhav S/O Kailas Raut Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Deolapar… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

15.Cr.Appeal No.294.21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.294/2021

¶5

Vaibhav S/o. Kailas Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶6

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders

¶8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri Amol Hunge, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms M.A. Barabde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.

¶9

CORAM : V. M .DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE:06/08/2021.

¶11

1.Shri Amol Hunge, learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that this appeal under Section 14-
A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed since the
application for anticipatory bail was rejected. This appeal
was never listed before this Court. There was no order in
favour of the appellant.

¶12

2.Shri Hunge, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that during pendency of this appeal the appellant
is arrested, therefore, the appeal has rendered infructuous.
His statement is accepted.

¶13

3.The criminal appeal is disposed of, as
infructuous.

¶14

4.Pending application(s), if any, stand(s)
disposed of accordingly.

¶15

 JUDGEJUDGE

¶16

RGurnule

Vaibhav S/O Kailas Raut v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Deolapar Dist.Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav S/O Kailas Raut v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Deolapar Dist.Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar @ Bandu S/O Sahadeo Selokar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Officer in Charge of Police Station Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara

Pravin S/O Shrirang Yelmule Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Officer in Charge of Police Station Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha

Rajkumar @ Bandu S/O Sahadeo Selokar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Officer in Charge of Police Station Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara

Dharmendra S/O Sopan Kamble Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Dongaon Dist.Buldhana

Rajesh S/O. Shravan Rangari Vs Vinod S/O. Bhaurao Pande and 2 Others

Shyamgir S/O Kishorgir Giri and 4 Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Daryapur, Distamravati