CRIMINAL Ashwin Bansi Sapkale v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The petition is accordingly dismissed. V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL
Judgment
dgmgmgm THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY INININ THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE WRIT PETITION NO.2332 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2332 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2332 OF 2008 CRIMINAL Ashwin Bansi Sapkale Vs. The State of Maharashtra Petitioner Respondent. Mrs.V.R.Raje for the petitioner. Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, APP for the State. : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM V.MOHTA,JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. ANOOP : 19th January, 2009. DATED : 19th January, 2009. DATED : 19th January, 2009. DATED P.C.P.C.P.C. The petitioner furlough rejected ground witness appeared against harmed petitioner. We ground sustainable. But counter affidavit prisoner granted furlough 14
13.02.2007 overstayed a period 34 days. Inspite this, granted parole
3.7.2007 released parole overstayed 105 days. Looking conduct petitioner, deserves granted parole leave. However, months today, petitioner application be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. ( 2 )
The petition is accordingly dismissed. V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 19 Jan 2009. The bench was ANOOP V MOHTA, ANOOP, BILAL NAZKI, BILAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.