This court rejected an application referencing a prior order refusing to exercise discretion in a related counter case.
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.
APL859.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 859/2021
Naina w/o Sunil Mali .vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO PS Sadar, Nagpur
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directionsCourt's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. A. M. Sharma, Advocate for applicant.
CORAM :V.M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for applicant,
fairly points out that in counter case i.e. Criminal
Application (APL) No.858/2021, this Court has refused to
exercise the discretion.
The Court appreciates this fairness of the
learned counsel for the applicant.
The application is, therefore, rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Application (APL) No. 858/2021Referred¶9
Naina w/o Sunil Mali
State of Maharashtra, through PSO PS Sadar, Nagpur
V.M. DESHPANDE
AMIT B. BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court