Anticipatory bail application argued at length; the court was not inclined to grant relief, and on instructions the applicant sought to withdraw it. The application was dismissed as withdrawn, with fees payable to the appointed advocate for respondent No. 3.
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.
937-ABA-96-24 1
2024:BHC-AUG:6090
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2024
Gajanan Pratap Chikane … Applicant VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others … Respondents
Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A.R. Kale, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State Ms. Kajal P. Angarkhe, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.3
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
DATE : 19th MARCH, 2024
ORDER :
[ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE
1 of 1
S.P. Rane
Gajanan Pratap Chikane
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No. 3
Nitin B. Suryawanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
