Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Rajendra Bhau Patole vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 December, 2021

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Sarang V. Kotwal

                                                     1/2                     902-WP-3812-21.odt

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3812 OF 2021

                      Rajendra Bhau Patole                              .... Petitioner

                                    versus

                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                   .... Respondents
                                                    .......

                      •      Mr.Girish Kulkarni a/w Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Advocate for
                             Petitioner.
                      •      Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for State/Respondent.

                                                CORAM       : NITIN JAMDAR &
                                                              SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
                                                DATE        : 21 DECEMBER 2021

                      P.C. :

                      .             Heard learned counsel for the parties.


2. The first prayer in this Petition is for a declaration that MANUSHREE Section 21(3) of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, V NESARIKAR 1999 (MCOCA), is unconstitutional. The prayer is in abstract and Digitally signed by MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Date: 2021.12.23 the Constitutional validity of the Act has been upheld by the 17:18:54 +0530 Supreme Court. The second prayer is for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge in Anticipatory Bail Nesarikar 2/2 902-WP-3812-21.odt Application. This challenge cannot be considered in a writ jurisdiction. Both the prayers thus cannot be granted. There are no other prayers. The Petition could have been dismissed today itself on this count. However, since the learned counsel for Petitioner seeks time to examine the position and amend the prayers, by way of indulgence, stand over to 6 January 2022. Leave to amend is granted.

3. In case of any emergent situation, after the amendment is so carried out, the Petitioner can apply to the Vacation Court, after satisfying the Vacation Court of the urgency.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)