Applicant sought expunging of prima facie remarks made by the Additional Sessions Judge in an anticipatory bail order dated 30 October 2023, paragraph 6. The High Court noted the observations were only for deciding bail and the trial court would decide on merits; application disposed of.
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
39-appln-42-2024.doc
MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.07.1615:39:23+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Application No. 42 of 2024
XYZ ..Applicant
Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra a/w. Ekta Bhalerao, for the Applicant. Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Husain Khan i/b. Tariq Khan, for the Respondent No.2.
Coram : R. N. Laddha, J.
Date : 15 July 2024
P.C.
. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the sole concern raised by the applicant pertains to the remarks made by the Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 30 October 2023, specifically in paragraph No.6. However, it is evident from the observations in the order that these are prima facie observations and solely intended for determining the anticipatory bail application. Needless to state that the Court will decide the case on its own merits, adhering to the applicable legal provisions.
R. N. Laddha, J.
page 1 of 1
XYZ
The State of Maharashtra
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
