The State Of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary vs. Pintya @ Bhausaheb Sampat Bavale

ITEM NO.1715 COURT NO.10 SECTION II-A SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2044-2047/2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS PINTYA @ BHAUSAHEB SAMPAT BAVALE Respondent $(s)$ WITH SLP(Crl) No. 2168-2171/2016 (II-A) Date: 06-10-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditva Krishna, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Nidhi, AOR Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Anand Mishra, AOR Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. M.Z. Choudhary, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

$_{\mbox{\tiny{ackverfied}}}$ These SLPs are against the judgment and order of the High gart of Judicature at Bombay, dated 12.04.2013 in connected <table>

Criminal Appeals Nos. 686, 777, 832 and 1084 of 2005.

In SLP(Crl)No.2168-2171 of 2016, the counsel representing the victim-petitioner has expired and notices were issued to the victim-petitioner to make alternative arrangements.

It appears that none has so far been engaged by the said victim-petitioner to represent him in the SLP.

As it appears that the State of Maharashtra is also in appeal against the same judgment and is represented by a counsel, at this stage it is not considered necessary to issue fresh notice to the petitioner in SLP(Crl)No.2168-2171 of 2016, to engage another counsel. Whether the said petitioner ought to be represented by a Legal Aid counsel would be considered at the appropriate stage.

Let the SLPs be listed before an appropriate Bench for orders.

(HEMALATHA MOHAN) (VEENA RANI NAGPAL) P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)