SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 2000

S. G. MEHARE
Ganesh Baburao Kharat – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
S.J. Salunke, Advocate, A.B. Ghule, Advocate, K.S. Patil, Advocate, D.R. Gavhad, Advocate

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the informant.

2. The record reveals that the trial was protracted due to an application filed by the complainant to transfer the Sessions Trial on so-called apprehension of getting no justice for him. His application for transfer of the Sessions Case was rejected. He had preferred Criminal Writ Petition before this Court against the said order, and that has also been dismissed his petition.

3. The roznama (daily order sheet) referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant reveals that the learned Public Prosecutor was absent. However, after the order passed by this Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the complainant, around six witnesses were examined. The accused has a right to have a speedy trial. At the same time, papers reveal that few witnesses remained to be examined.

4. It appears that around 11 witnesses have been examined, and there is a possibility of completing the trial in the near future. However, Court is not oblivious that the summer vacations are approaching. Therefore, instead of granting bail, the learned Additional Sessions Ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top