Disposed

Mahendra Amarnath Yadav Alias Sonu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Nov 2024BA/337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail Application No. 337 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Judge: Manish Pitale; decision date 24-09-2024. Applicant: Mahendra Amarnath Yadav @ Sonu (counsel Tohid Shaikh i/b Anjali Patil). Respondents: The State of Maharashtra (APP Sagar R. Agarkar) and respondent No.2 - originally shown as the informant, directed to be amended to show the victim (couns

What did the court decide?

No decision rendered on the bail application itself at this stage; preliminary/procedural directions only: amendment of the application so that respondent No.2 is shown as the victim, notice to respon

Mahendra Amarnath Yadav Alias Sonu vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

919.BA.337.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 337 OF 2024

¶4

Mahendra Amarnath Yadav @ Sonu

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

¶10

Mr. Tohid Shaikh i/b Ms. Anjali Patil, for Applicant.

¶11

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶12

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2024.09.25 12:27:14 +0530

¶13

Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent No.1.

¶14

Ms. Nausheen Siddiqui h/f Nazneen Khatri, for Respondent No.2.

¶15

Mr. Sumit Krishna Kumar Tiwari h/f Mr. Bhomesh R. Bellam (Appointed through Legal Aid Services Committee).

¶16

Mr. Khandagale, PSI, Vanrai Police Station.

¶17

¶18

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 24^th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶19

P. C. :

¶20

In this application, the original informant was shown as respondent No.2 and as per order dated 24.07.2024, Mr. Bhomesh R. Bellam, learned counsel was appointed to appear on behalf of the said respondent, through Legal Aid. Mr. Sumit Krishna Kumar Tiwari h/f Mr. Bhomesh R. Bellam, is present in Court.

¶21

But, Ms. Nausheen Siddiqui h/f Nazneen Khatri, learned counsel has appeared in Court and she says that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the victim and that the victim is present in Court.

¶22

In that light, it would be appropriate that the application is amended forthwith to show the respondent No.2 as the victim, instead of the

Page1 of 2

Shrikant Malani

919.BA.337.2024.doc

informant.

Issue notice to respondent No.2 (Victim). The notice is waived by Ms. Nausheen Siddiqui h/f Nazneen Khatri, learned counsel having instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 (Victim), who herself present in Court.

¶28

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 (Victim) be filed within one week from today.

¶29

In that light, Mr. Bhomesh R. Bellam, learned counsel who was appointed through Legal Aid, is discharged from appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶30

List the application for further consideration on 23^rd October, 2024, to be included in the “Supplementary List.”

¶31

Page2 of 2

¶32

Shrikant Malani

Mahendra Amarnath Yadav Alias Sonu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Amarnath Yadav Alias Sonu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Ramu Namdeo Chavhan vs the State of Maharashtra

Acko Technology and Services Private Limited vs Sudhir Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Saunand Hirji Khatri vs Prabhulal Jethalal Jogi

Amol Suresh Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra

Shishir Mangesh Shivapurkar vs State of Maharashtra

Chhaya Kharat @ Chhaya Dhanaji Chandanshive vs the State of Maharashtra