Vijay Bapurao Shirole v. The State Of Maharashtra
by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date:
2024.01.23 11:08:09 +0530 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.452 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.493 OF 2017 Vijay Bapurao Shirole ...Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.492 OF 2017 Vijay Bapurao Shirole ...Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.451 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.492 OF 2017 Vijay Bapurao Shirole ...Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.453 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.493 OF 2017 Vijay Bapurao Shirole ...Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.454 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.494 OF 2017 Vijay Bapurao Shirole ...Applicant 1/3
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.494 OF 2017 Vijay Bapurao Shirole ...Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.456 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.495 OF 2017 Vijay Bapurao Shirole ...Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.457 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.495 OF 2017 Vijay Bapurao Shirole ...Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
***** None for the Applicant.
None for the Respondent.
Mr. A.D. Kamkhedkar, APP for Respondent - State. ***** CORAM :
S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 17th JANUARY 2024 P. C. :- 1.
Today also no one is present on behalf of the Applicant in all these Revision Applications.
2/3
2.
In the order dated 3rd January 2024 all the events have been quoted. Earlier Police report from Kamothe Police Station suggests that the Applicant has left from the premises mentioned in title clause of the Application. These matters are pending since 2017. This Court should wait for how long duration for such litigant who is not only negligent but having disregard to the provisions of law. Even the Applicant has not cared to see that delay will be condoned. I do not find any reason to keep all these matters pending. In view of that, the following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) Application for condonation of delay is dismissed for nonprosecution; (ii) Consequential Criminal Revision Applications also stand disposed of;
(iii) Interim order, if any, stands discharged; (iv) The trial Court is at liberty to go on with the execution if pending or if subsequently filed.
(v) Pending Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.] 3/3