Appellate procedural order in a criminal appeal involving POCSO provisions; appointed counsel noted a criminal application would be required. Appeal listed for further consideration.
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.
Megha
21_apeal_770_2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.770 OF 2023
Dnyaneshwar Trimbak Patil @ Patil Baba
….Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ....Respondents
Mr. Dushyant Digamber i/b. Mr. Amit Icham for the Appellant.
Ms Shilpa K. Gajare-Dhumal, APP for Respondent No.1
Ms Priyanka Chavan, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 14 August 2024.
P.C. :
MEGHA
SHREEDHAR PARAB
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally signed by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2024.08.17 10:59:36 +0530
___Page No.1 of 1 ___ 14 August 2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dnyaneshwar Trimbak Patil @ Patil Baba
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
17 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
