Praecipe moved to correct the minutes of an earlier order of 9 September 2024 in which respondent numbering was inadvertently misstated. The court directed that paragraph 5 be corrected, replacing 'respondent No.1' with 'respondents No.2 to 4', and uploaded.
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
501-appln-96-2021.doc
Digitally signed byMAMTA AMARKALEDate: 2024.09.1114:09:32 +0530MAMTAAMARKALE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Application No. 96 of 2021
Archana Bhausaheb Patil
...Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b. Vivek Arote, for the Applicant. Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar a/w. Mr. Abhishek Ulhas Arote i/b. Mr. Yash Saxena, for Respondents No.2 to 4.
PN 1527 Santosh Shivaji Gaikwad, Pandharpur Taluka Police Station is present.
Coram: R. N. Laddha, J. Date: 11 September 2024
P.C.
. Not on board. Taken on board.
R. N. Laddha, J.
Page 1 of 1
Archana Bhausaheb Patil
The State of Maharashtra
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
