A praecipe was filed to correct a court order issued under POCSO 2012. The court granted the request to issue notice to the correct respondent, the informant, instead of the one listed in the previous order.
Order dated 22.11.2024 corrected to issue notice to respondent No.3 (informant) instead of respondent No.2.
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.
P6_BA_4391_24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4391 OF 2024
| Vinay Dilip Khate | … | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| vs. | ||
| The State of Maharashtra and others | … | Respondents |
Mr. Vishal M. Deshmukh for applicant.
Mr. Kiran C. Shinde, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2024
P.C. :
. Not on board. Mentioned by way of praecipe, for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 22.11.2024.
(MANISH PITALE, J)
1/1
Priya Kambli
1 issue framed by the court
Whether notice issued under POCSO 2012 should be directed to the informant instead of a different respondent
Vinay Dilip Khate
The State of Maharashtra
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
17 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
