← Library
Bombay High CourtAPPP/266/2014others disposed off

Jaideep Vitthalrao Ladkat v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2017-06-27Hon'Ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere3 pages

1/3 nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.266 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2013 Jaideep Vitthalrao Ladkat ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.Vikram Chavan a/w Mr.Balasaheb Ligade, Ms.Sheetal Thakur and Ms.Sonia Redkar i/b Mr.D.S.Patil, for the Applicant. Mr.S.R.Agarkar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 27th JUNE, 2017 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2.

By this application, the applicant seeks the following prayers:- a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to recall and set aside its order dated 6th December 2013 passed in Criminal Application No.183 of 2013.

2/3 b) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to restore the Criminal Application No.183 of 2013 to its original file. 3.

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that he was not heard on merits, in Criminal Application No.183 of 2013, and that this Court has not considered the material as against the respondent nos.2 to 7. 4.

Perused the order dated 6th December, 2013. It appears that Criminal Application No.183 of 2013, was filed by the applicant seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent nos.2 to 7 and this Court (Coram:K.U.Chandiwal,J.) vide order dated 6th December, 2013 was pleased to dismiss the said application. No doubt, learned counsel for the applicant was not heard as he was not present. However, it appears from the said order that this Court had gone through the material on record as filed and had observed that there was no breach or protest as yet reported by the police. It was also observed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had evaluated the available material and had found that the custodial interrogation of the respondents was not wanted and had directed the respondents to make themselves available for interrogation by the

3/3 Investigating Officer.

5.

There is no merit in the Application. The Application is accordingly rejected and disposed of as such. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)