Bombay High CourtBA/544/2019rejected

Dhanraj Dagadu Chavhan v. State Of Mah., Thr. Pso

2019-08-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Murlidhar Ganpatrao Giratkar2 pages

1 ba 544.2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 544 of 2019 Dhanraj Dagadu Chavhan Vs.

State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Rishabh Khemuka, Advocate for the applicant Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, APP for the State/non-applicant CORAM : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.

DATED : 27/08/2019 Heard learned Counsel Shri Khemuka for the applicant and learned APP Mrs. Prabhu for the State/non-applicant. The detail order was passed while rejecting Bail Application no. 310 of 2019. It is observed by this Court in the said order that the proceeding was delayed mainly because of the repeated adjournments sought by the applicant/accused. After filing the present application, again the report was called from the concerned Sessions Judge. District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Pusad vide letter dated 13.08.2019, reported this Court that the accused sought the adjournments and, therefore, matter is delayed.

From the perusal of the report, it appears that Investigation Officer API Jadwar was examined. His examination-

2 ba 544.2019.odt in-chief came to be recorded, but it could not be completed due to the adjournment application filed by the learned Counsel for the accused. Therefore, the said Sessions Case is fixed on 07.08.2019 for cross-examination. It is clear from the report of the District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Pusad that the accused is delaying the matter. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Hence, the application is rejected.

JUDGE SMGate