Anticipatory bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution as the applicant was unavailable to give instructions; a look-out circular had been issued against him.
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.
Mamta Kale
27-aba-2259-2024.docx
MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.10.2519:46:20+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2259 of 2024
Rohit Kapur
… Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr Niranjan Kondyala h/f. C. B. Ambani i/b. C. A. Legal, for the applicant.
Ms Supriya Kak, APP, for the respondent/ State.
PI Balasaheb Bankar, N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai is present.
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 25 October 2024
P.C.:
. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not available for giving instructions and therefore, he is unable to argue the matter.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
Page 1 of 1
25 October 2024
Rohit Kapur
The State of Maharashtra
R.N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
