Anticipatory bail application dismissed for want of prosecution as the applicant was absent on the second call despite the urgent nature of the application.
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.
911-ABA-3472-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3472 OF 2024.
Vishal Vitthalrao Hande ...Applicant Vs State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
None for the Applicant.
Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Mayur Nikam, P. S. I., Adgaon P.Stn. Nashik.
——————
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2024.
P. C. :
1. None for the applicant on the second call, despite the fact that
this application seeking anticipatory bail by its very nature is extremely urgent.
2. Learned APP is present and ready for arguments.
3. Hence dismissed for want of prosecution.
[MANISH PITALE, J.]
1 of 1
rsk
Vishal Vitthalrao Hande
State of Maharashtra
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
18 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
