Piyush Priydarshan Naik v. State of Maharashtra
Bombay HCBA/472/2024
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Bail application under MCOCA where the applicant's counsel submitted that sanction under Section 23 had not yet been granted. The State sought time to take instructions and the court adjourned the matter.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
914 ba 472 of 2024.doc
¶2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.472 OF 2024
¶3
Piyush Priydarshan Naik
¶4
Applicant
¶5
versus
¶6
The State of Maharashtra
¶7
Respondent
¶8
Mr. Ankit Takle with Ms. Nidhi Narwekar, for Applicant. Mrs. Geeta P Mulekar, APP for State.
¶9
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 2 FEBRUARY 2024
¶10
P.C.
¶11
- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
¶12
- Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that as per his instructions,
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- applicant
Piyush Priydarshan Naik
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
AI extract
N.J. Jamadar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
28 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Imrana S/O Mahiboob Shaikh Vs Mohammad Ishaq Ahmad Somani and Anr.
Kashibai Devgonda Patil and Ors. Vs Sushila Raosaheb Patil and Ors.
Pramod Murari Pawar and Ors. Vs Ramesh N. Vakhariya and Anr.
Saraf Kaskar Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. vs the District Deputy Registrar Coopertive Societies and Anr.