The petition was disposed of as nothing survived for consideration after the Appropriate Authority accepted the petitioner as a witness without charge-sheet status. The statement of the investigating officer was placed on record.
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.
Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 124 OF 2022
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2023.07.03 11:27:04 +0530
Dr. Suyog @ Bobby Samuel Aarwattigi .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents
Ms Tanvi Tapkire, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State Mr. Nilesh Wable i/b. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Somnath Jaywant Kachare, PSI, Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Miraj, District – Sangli present
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 27TH JUNE, 2023
P. C.
. Based on the rival submissions of the parties i. e.
the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 – Complainant and in the
backdrop of the observations made in the order dated
06.06.2023, learned APP on instructions of the investigating offcer submits that even if the Petitioner is
shown to be accused in the crime in question, he will not be charge-sheeted. However, the Petitioner should co-operate, if
he is to be cited as witness.
1 of 2
so summoned as witness, the Petitioner shall co-operate in investigation.
record.
(R. N. LADDHA, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
2 of 2
Anand Sudhakar Sudame
The State of Maharashtra
Nitin W. Sambre
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
