On interim application for impleadment, the single-judge High Court held that the informant must be added as respondent no. 2 given the nature of the dispute. The application was allowed and subsequently disposed of.
Informant allowed to be added as respondent no. 2; application disposed of.
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.
(20)-aba-2104-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2104 OF 2024
Gregory D’souza ... Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Dinesh Shivajirao Ghadage … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. D.V. Sawant with Mr. Bhikaji Palav I.by Mr. S.R. Nirmale, for the applicant.
VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2024.05.28 19:34:28 +0530
Mr. Nilesh Gala (through V.C.) with Mr. Enait V Shaikh, for intervenor.
Mr. A.I. Satpute, APP for the State.
Mr. Chormale,P.I. with Sanjay Patil, PSI, Antophill Police Station.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 28th May 2024 (Vacation Court)
PC:
1 of 2
varsha
(20)-aba-2104-2024.doc
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1414 of 2024 forthwith. The application stands disposed of.
( KISHORE C. SANT, J)
2 of 2
varsha
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the informant should be impleaded as a party respondent in the application under consideration.
Dinesh Shivajirao Ghadage
The State of Maharashtra
Kishore C. Sant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
