PRAMOD MANOHAR SARDAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO, PS URAL TQ. BALAPUR DIST. AKOLA
BA/1177/2025 · 2025-12-11
Vrushali V Joshi
Civil Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 63583 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 63583 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 43.ba.1177.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1177/2025 Pramod Manohar Sardar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ….…............................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order or directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................……….. Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State. Mr. A. S. Dhage, Advocate Assist to Prosecution.
CORAM :
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 11.12.2025
1. This is second bail application filed by the applicant.
2. The earlier bail application was withdrawn with liberty to move to this Court if the trial is not commenced within six months. Now, the applicant has filed this application stating that, the trial is not commenced. The status report of the trial is called. As per the status report, on 08.10.2025, one witness was examined. The matter was fixed for 10.12.2025 and the evidence is part heard.
3.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that as the C.A. report about the mobile phone is not there, the matter is adjourned.
4. Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur is
directed to submit the C.A. report in said proceedings.
5. As the trial is initiated, the application stands
disposed of as rejected.
6. Fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per Rules.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) RGurnule 2025:BHC-NAG:14145