Anticipatory bail application disposed of after the State reported that a charge-sheet had been filed; the court observed custodial interrogation was not required and did not decide the application on merits.
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.
36-aba-285-2021.doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 2021
Avinash Dagdu Jagdale … Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
Mr.Prashant Raul along with Mr. Mayur G. Sanap, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Kiran C. Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 19th MARCH, 2024.
P.C. :
the State.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
1/1
Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2024.03.20 15:04:55 +0530
Avinash Dagdu Jagdale
The State of Maharashtra
Shivkumar Dige
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
