Sachin Rajendra Ghogare v. State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
Procedural order in a bail application: counsel sought leave to implead the informant as Respondent No.2; the court permitted the amendment, dispensed with re-verification, and issued notice returnable to a later date.
What the court decided
33-BA-4017-2024 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4017 OF 2024
Sachin Rajendra Ghogare ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Tapan Thatte, (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Vivek Arote, Mr. Rajabhar Chaudhari i/by Mr. Yogesh Gore for the Applicant. Mr. C. D. Mali, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 4th DECEMBER, 2024
PC:-
- Mr. Tapan Thatte, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant seeks leave to implead the informant as party Respondent No.2.
- Amendment be carried out forthwith.
- Re-verification is dispensed with.
- Issue notice to Respondent No.2, returnable on 18th
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sachin Rajendra Ghogare
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
Madhav J. Jamdar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
10 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court