Disposed¶6

Dr Shrikant Kisanlal Marda v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Apr 2025APPLN/238/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Application No. 238 of 2024, decided 07-08-2025 by Ashwin D. Bhobe, J. Keywords: relaxation of bail condition no. 6; order dated 6th December 2019; restraint on medical practice; 73-year-old doctor applicant (Dr. Shrikant Kisanlal Marda); State of Maharashtra; alleged breach/violation of bail condition; A.P.P. Veera Shinde; advocate Sarang S. Aradhye; leave to produce documents; reply by 14th August 2025; rejoinder by 21st August 2025; matter listed 25th August 2025; interim order, no merits decided, no statutes or cases cited.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr Shrikant Kisanlal Marda vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

901-APPLN-238-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 238 OF 2024

¶4

Dr. Shrikant Kisanlal Marda

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye a/w Ms. Gauri Velankar, Mr. Shantanu Gurav and Ms. Dnyaneshwari S. Utpat, learned Advocates for the Applicant. Ms. Veera Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 7^th AUGUST 2025.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This matter was partly argued on 6^th August 2025 by Mr. Sarang Aradhye, learned Advocate for the Applicant. The ground on which the Applicant is seeking relaxation of condition no. 6 of the order dated 6^th December 2019, is that the Applicant is presently 73 years old doctor, who has been restrained from pursuing his medical practice in view of the condition imposed while releasing him on bail. Mr. Sarang Aradhye, learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant had complied with condition no. 6 of the order dated 6^th December 2019 and stopped his medical practice since the date of order granting bail, till date.

¶13

Ms. Veera Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent at that point of time had objected on the ground that the Applicant

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

Gitalaxmi

¶16

901-APPLN-238-2024.doc

¶17

had committed breach/violated the said condition and had sought for time to substantiate her objection. The matter is accordingly placed today at the request of the parties.

¶18

Today Ms. Veera Shinde, learned A.P.P. craves leave to produce on record the documents to demonstrate that the Applicant has breached the said condition.

¶19

Mr. Sarang Aradhye, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that in the event the State/Respondent places the same on record along with a reply, he would be able to deal with the said objection.

¶20

Mrs. Veera Shinde, learned A.P.P, requests for a week’s time to file reply in the present Application. Reply to be filed by 14^th August 2025 by serving a advance copy on the learned Advocate for the Applicant. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed on or before 21^st August 2025.

¶21

At the request of Ms. Veera Shinde, learned A.P.P. and by consent of the parties, list the matter on 25^th August 2025 .

¶22

[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.]

¶23

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2025.08.07 15:01:29 +0530

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

Gitalaxmi

Dr Shrikant Kisanlal Marda v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr Shrikant Kisanlal Marda v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madan Narayan Kadam vs State of Maharashtra

Manoj @ Bhaiji Bibhishan Surerao vs State of Maharashtra

Avinash Popatrao Joshi and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhondiram Nana Pukale vs State of Maharashtra

Sahil Bhimgsingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra

Ashrafbhai Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya vs Union of India and Anr.