Kapildav Chugh v. State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
Applicant, appearing in person despite direction to engage a lawyer, challenged acquittal of respondents and tendered written arguments; the Court adjourned the matter to a later date without deciding anything.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
(30)ALP-46-2024.doc
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2024
Kapildav Chug ] .. Applicant vs. Ssatnam Singh Sahi & Ors. ] .. Respondents
Mr.Kapildav Chugh, Applicant in person.
Mr.Manoj Khatri a/w Christabelle M.K. for Respondent No.2. Ms.Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the State.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ
DATE : 21st NOVEMBER, 2024.
P.C.
- Though Mr.Chug was directed to engage a lawyer within a period of two weeks, by order dated 09/10/2024, he is insisting to argue the Application in person.
- He has tendered written arguments and we deem it appropriate to go through the same. In addition, he has also supplied copy of the same to the learned APP as well as to the contesting respondents, the accused who stand acquitted and whose acquittal is challenged before this Court.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Kapildav Chug
- respondent
Ssatnam Singh Sahi & Ors.
Coram
Bharati Dangre
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
18 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal Sandesh Dadasaheb Patil
- Order 2 · Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal Sandesh Dadasaheb Patil
- Order 3 · Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal Sandesh Dadasaheb Patil
- Order 4 · Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal Sandesh Dadasaheb Patil
- Order 5 · Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal Sandesh Dadasaheb Patil
- Order 6
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court