All Cases

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : $6/09/2018$ None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objection. $sd/-$ REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Karnik SumitDigitally signed bySumit Ramesh KarnikRameshDate: 2018.09.12Karnik15:21:58 +0530

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 28/09/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance is granted to remove office objection. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.03 15:10:54 +0530

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 22/10/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance excluding Diwali Vacation is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.25 17:07:48 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 7/12/2018 None present 4 weeks time excl. Christmas Vacation is granted to remove office objections, failing which S.A.St. shall stand refused for registration, alongwith all the C.A.Sts. filed in this S.A.St., without further reference to the Court. sd/- I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5593 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrar's orders Shri Tushar Bhavsar a/w R Bhatt a/w Ms Prerna Khirsagar i/b Mr Manoj Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.M.Patne, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr R.K.Mendadkar, for respondent nos 3 to 11. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 28/06/2012 PC: Heard Mr Tushar Bhavsar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr R.M.Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos 1 and 2, Mr Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos 3 to 11. In view of the order passed today in Writ Petition No.5460 of 2012, this writ petition is rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as infructuous. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) 2/2 WP/5593/2012

Order - Status 5: 938-wp-5679-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5679 OF 2017 Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Gramsevak & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Ameya Deshpande i/by Mr.V.B. Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.Vishwajeet V. Mohite for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 26th MAY 2017 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The statusquo order passed on 27th April 2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 08th June 2017. List the matter on 08th June 2017. [M.S. KARNIK, J]

Order - Status 7: Trupti p506wp-5679-17.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5679 OF 2017 …... …... Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Gramsevak, Gramopanchayat Jakhinwadi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vikas B.Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.V.V.Mohite for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: JUNE 7, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. The status-quo order passed on 27.04.2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 27.06.2017. Stand over to 27.06.2017 (High on Board). (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5679 OF 2017 Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Gramsevak & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 27th June, 2017. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, this Petition is heard finally and decided at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 27th April, 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Karad dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2016 thereby confirming the order dated 21st November, 2016 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Karad in Regular Civil Suit No. 410 of 2016. The plaintiffs/petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit for perpetual injunction against respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the members of Gram Panchayat of Village Jakhinwadi, Taluka Karad, District Satara and respondent no. 3/one private party that the respondents/original defendants shall not construct especially a wall and the road, which is available to the petitioners/plaintiffs, should not be closed and they should not disturb the petitioners from the use of the said road. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been enjoying the west side of the said road since last many years, however, the respondents collusively have decided to construct a compound wall for the kitchen of the auditorium which was constructed by Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that earlier a suit was filed between the respondents and other parties in the year 1961 and in the earlier suit, a settlement has taken place wherein the said land was shown as a road available for the public use and thus, the petitioners have every right to use the said land as access and which is going to be closed because of the construction. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Courts below and has submitted that the petitioners have no right over the said property. The auditorium is constructed for the public purpose and public use, so the construction of the wall or any construction for that auditorium is not going to cause any hindrance or any disturbance to the access of the petitioners. He 2 / 3 further argued that other roads are available to the petitioners. Heard the submissions. Perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The reasons given by both the Courts are detailed. It is specifically observed by the learned Judges that the petitioners have failed to establish the case that there was only way as access to their property. It is also observed that other than that there are other access to their respective properties. Under such circumstances, it appears that prima facie no case is made out. The view taken by both the Courts cannot be interfered with. I am not inclined to extend the status quo order passed on 27th April, 2017 by the Appellate Court. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners orally prays for stay of operation of this order for four weeks. Considering the merits of the matter, I am not inclined to grant stay to this order. Order accordingly. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 7th June, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 04/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 4th July, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 29/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 22nd August, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned.Stand over to 16/09/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 16th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 09/10/2019 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 9th October, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 15/11/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 15th November, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/12/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1482 OF 2019 Roshan Sunil Pawar .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …... …... Mr.Silvin Y. Kale, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.A.A. Takalkar, APP APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2019. P.C. : The applicants in both the applications were arrested in connection with C.R.No.I–291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the ofence punishable under Section 302j read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 30th June, 2018, the victim/complainant was waiting at rickshaw stand. Accused Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde spoke to the victim and told him that he want to travel at Karanjade and the fare was fied at Rs.60/-. He boarded rickshaw. The victim dropped him at Karanjade. He paid Rs.50/- towards the fare although it was fied to be Rs.60/-. The victim demanded the balance amount. Accused Avi alias Ajinkya told him that he is associate of Rajesh Kaikadia and slapped him. The victim also slapped him. Thereafter, the victim went towards Panvel railway station and was waiting at rickshaw stand. At about 22:30 hrs., he went for smoking cigarette. Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde came and questioned him as to why he charges heavy fare and left the place. After some time, Ajinkya Shinde, Babu Kaikadia and two other persons approached the victim. Ajinkya Shinde assaulted him with iron rod in his head. As a result the victim fell down. Babu Kaikadia assaulted by knife and two other persons assaulted the victim by fst blows. Babu Kaikadia then assaulted him on head. The mother and wife of the victim reached the spot. Babu Kaikadia also assaulted his mother and all of them fled away from the place of incident. The victim was taken to the hospital. His statement was recorded, which was treated as First Information Report. Subsequently, victim succumbed to the injuries and charge under Section 302 of IPC was invoked. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant appearing for both the applicants submitted that there are major discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses. There are contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses. Applicants are falsely implicated,. There is no evidence against the applicant Roshan Pawar, the eye witnesses have given contradictory versions about the role played by him. Although, the applicant was identifed, subsequent to identifcation, diferent role is attributed to the said applicant. The version of both the eye witnesses were contradictory to each other. The applicants are in custody from the date of arrest and further detention is not necessary. Co-accused Iqbal Abdul Kadir Shaha has been granted bail by this Court. 4 Learned APP submitted that the role has been assigned to both the applicants. Applicant Avinash had picked up quarrel with the deceased. Thereafter, he came along with other accused and the victim was assaulted by weapons. The applicants are identifed by the eye witnesses. Thus, there is suficient evidence against the applicant and bail may not be granted. 5 Having heard both the sides. I have perused the charge–sheet. The frst informant is the victim of the crime. He has stated that accused Avi alias Ajinkya had quarreled with him. Subsequently, he came along with the other accused. In the frst information report, it is stated that Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde had assaulted the victim on his head by iron rod and Babu Kaikadia had assaulted by knife. Two unknown persons had allegedly caught hold of the victim. Thus, the role of assault is attributed to Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde and Babu Kaikadia. During the course of investigation, statement of Naziya and Sherbano were recorded. Naziya had stated in a statement under Section 164 that the victim was assaulted by Avi alias Ajinkya and others. Avi alias Ajinkya was holding iron rod and the other short person was holding knife. The victim was assaulted by iron rod on his head and the other person had assaulted by knife. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which is in consonance with her earlier statement. Thus, the said witness categorically stated that Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde had assaulted the victim by iron rod on his head and other persons assaulted by knife. Statement of Sherbano was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She has stated that accused Avi alias Ajinkya and others had assaulted the victim. The identifcation parade was conducted. In the parade Naziya has identifed accused Roshan Pawar and stated that Roshan Pawar had assaulted victim by knife. The other witness Ayesha has also identifed Roshan Pawar and during the identifcation stated that he had assaulted the victim by fst blows. Thus, apparently, there are discrepancies in the evidence with regards to the role played by Roshan Pawar in the FIR, statement of eye witnesses and the identifcation parade. However, as far as Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde, is concerned, specifc overtact has been attributed to him. There is consistency in the evidence of witnesses. He was the cause of quarrel and incident of murder. The victim as well as other witnesses have attributed him role of assault. In this circumstances, applicant Roshan Pawar can be granted bail, however, applicant Ajinkya @ Avinash Shinde is not entitled for bail. 7 Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: (i) Bail Application No.1482 of 2019, is allowed and disposed of; (ii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.I– 291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police Station, Navi Mumbai, on his eiecuting P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, shall attend the concerned police station once in a month on frst Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial; (iv) Bail Application No.1483 of 2019, is rejected. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1205 OF 2019 Uday Manohar Sule .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent ….... Mr.S.V. Marwadi i/b. N.M. Nadar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.Anilkumar Patil, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 06th JUNE, 2019 P.C. : Learned Counsel for the Applicant on instructions of the daughter of the Applicant, who is present in the Court, prays for withdrawal of this Application. Liberty as prayed for is granted. The Application is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1525 OF 2022 Kiran Sunder Anchan .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Niranjan Mundargi i/b Mr.Vaibhav G. Bagade for the Applicant. ... … Mr.S.V.Gavand, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2022 P.C:- At the request of the learned A.P.P., re-notify to 13/06/2022. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1525 OF 2022 Kiran Sunder Anchan ] ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Mr. Vaibhav G. Bagade for the applicant. … Mr. S.V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Rajiv Sakpal, PI attached to Andheri Police Station is present in the court. … CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2022. P.C.:- C.R. No.372 of 2022 came to be registered with Andheri Police Station on 23/04/2022, pursuant to a raid conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar, Bengali Chawl, Koldongri, Sahara Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The incident resulted in invoking Sections 308, 294, 114 and Section 34 of the IPC read with Sections 3, 8(1), (2), (4) and 33 (R) of the Maharashtra Act, 2016. The said C.R. arraign 22 persons as accused and the applicant came to be arraigned as accused No.19. Relying upon the remand report, learned counsel would submit that the Manager as well as the cashier of the concerned Bar, in which the raid was conducted, are arrested. One Shridhar Shetty (accused No.23) is the owner of the Bar, who has been released on bail in an anticipatory bail application. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant advanced an argument that the applicant is the Manager in one Hotel Mansa Bar & Restaurant, Andheri and he has been arraigned as an accused, without any connection with the raid conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar. Learned A.P.P. was, therefore, asked to ascertain the factual position. Learned A.P.P. states that the FIR makes a reference to Kiran Pujari and the applicant is Kiran Sunder Anchan and learned A.P.P. is unable to point out any positive material to demonstrate that the person named in the FIR is the applicant. In any case, when specifically asked as to what is the connection with the owner/Manager of the other Bars, operating within the jurisdiction of Andheri Police Station and why all of them are arraigned as accused, no response is coming forward from the side of the prosecution. In the absence of any involvement of the applicant in the raid, which was conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar and since the applicant was neither the owner nor employed in the said Bar and, in fact, the owner of the Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar is informed to have been granted protection, there is no reason why the same protection cannot be extended to the present applicant. Hence, the following order: ORDER (a) In the event of arrest, the applicant Kiran Sunder Anchan shall be temporarily released on bail in C.R. No.372 of 2022 registered with Andheri Police Station, District Mumbai, on executing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000**/** and furnishing one or two sureties of the like amount. (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence. (c) The applicant shall report to the Andheri Police Station from 20/06/2022 to 22/06/2022 between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. and, thereafter, as and when directed. List the application along with Anticipatory Bail Application No.1484 of 2022 on 11/07/2022. All parties are directed to act on the downloaded copy of the order supplied by the Advocate under his seal and signature. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1525 OF 2022 Kiran Sunder Anchan ] ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Mr. Vaibhav G. Bagade for the applicant. … Mr. S.V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Rajiv Sakpal, PI attached to Andheri Police Station is present in the court. … CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2022. P.C.:- C.R. No.372 of 2022 came to be registered with Andheri Police Station on 23/04/2022, pursuant to a raid conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar, Bengali Chawl, Koldongri, Sahara Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The incident resulted in invoking Sections 308, 294, 114 and Section 34 of the IPC read with Sections 3, 8(1), (2), (4) and 33 (R) of the Maharashtra AJN This order stands corrected as per speaking to the minutes order dated 17.06.2022 . Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016. The said C.R. arraign 22 persons as accused and the applicant came to be arraigned as accused No.19. Relying upon the remand report, learned counsel would submit that the Manager as well as the cashier of the concerned Bar, in which the raid was conducted, are arrested. One Shridhar Shetty (accused No.23) is the owner of the Bar, who has been released on bail in an anticipatory bail application. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant advanced an argument that the applicant is the Manager in one Hotel Mansa Bar & Restaurant, Andheri and he has been arraigned as an accused, without any connection with the raid conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar. Learned A.P.P. was, therefore, asked to ascertain the factual position. Learned A.P.P. states that the FIR makes a reference to Kiran Pujari and the applicant is Kiran Sunder Anchan and learned A.P.P. is unable to point out any positive material to demonstrate that the person named in the FIR is the applicant. In any case, when specifically asked as to what is the connection with the owner/Manager of the other Bars, operating within the jurisdiction of Andheri Police Station and why all of them are arraigned as accused, no response is coming forward from the side of the prosecution. In the absence of any involvement of the applicant in the raid, which was conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar and since the applicant was neither the owner nor employed in the said Bar and, in fact, the owner of the Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar is informed to have been granted protection, there is no reason why the same protection cannot be extended to the present applicant. Hence, the following order: ORDER (a) In the event of arrest, the applicant Kiran Sunder Anchan shall be released on bail in C.R. No.372 of 2022 registered with Andheri Police Station, District Mumbai, on executing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000**/**- and furnishing one or two sureties of the like amount. (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence. (c) The applicant shall report to the Andheri Police AJN This order stands corrected as per speaking to the minutes order dated 17.06.2022 . Station from 20/06/2022 to 22/06/2022 between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. and, thereafter, as and when directed. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed off in the above terms. All parties are directed to act on the downloaded copy of the order supplied by the Advocate under his seal and signature. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1525 OF 2022 Kiran Sunder Anchan ] ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent … … Ms. Keral Mehta for the applicant. Mr. S.V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2022. P.C.:- Not on board. On mentioning, taken on board. It is pointed out that there are certain errors in the operative part of the order dated 13/06/2022 inasmuch as, the word 'temporarily' appearing in clause (a) of the operative part, is an inadvertent error and the same needs to be deleted. Similarly, paragraph No.6 is an inadvertent error and the same be replaced as follows: "6. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed off in the above terms." The Order dated 13/06/2022 be corrected accordingly. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.] AJN

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1086 OF 2004 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2004. Shri Amarnath Kapoor : Petitioner. versus. Shri D.S.Anand & Anr. : Respondents. Mr.S.V.Marwadi for the petitioner. Mr.D.R.More, APP, for the State. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : 9th August 2004. P.C. Petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by RPAD and also by Courier and produce acknowledgement and file affidavit before this Court. S.O. four weeks. ************** 1

Order - Status 13: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1086 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.V.Marwadi for appellant. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for state. CORAM : V.M.KANADE, J. DATE : November 23, 2004. P.C. :- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant has filed an affidavit in which it is stated that the first notice sent by the appellant returned unserved and thereafter this court directed fresh notice to be issued. Accordingly, advocate's notice dated 23/8/2004 was taken to the address of Respondent No.1. However, he was not found at the said address on the said date. The notices were also sent to the first respondent by speed post and under certificate of posting on 17/9/2004. Inspite of the service none appears for the respondent. The appellant again to serve notice by speed post and under certificate of posting on respondent No.1 stating therein that on the next date i.e. on 9th December, 2004, the appeal will be finally heard. Office to issue similar notice. Call for record and proceedings. S.O.to 9/12/2004. Parties to act on the ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated.