All Cases

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.339 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.1323 OF 2024 Kadar Isak Khan @ Matanwala : Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents Adv. Keshav Chanvan, for the Applicant. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the State. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2024 P.C. : Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 1st March, 2024. Learned APP waives notice for Respondent No.1. Notice to Respondent No.2 to be served through the Concerned Investigating Officer/Police Station. (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)

Order - Status 5: Diksha Rane 8. IA 339-24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.339/2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL 161/2024 KADAR ISAK KHAN @ MATANWALA ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS ------------ Adv. Keshar Chavan for the applicant. Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP for the State. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 1, 2024. P.C. : 1. I am informed that the appellant is in custody for more than 8 years. The notice has already been issued to the victim by this Court. The service report is awaited. The Investigating Officer to inform the victim the next date of hearing and that she has a right to be represented by an advocate or through legal aid. 2. Stand over to 6/3/2024 , high on board. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.339 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 of 2024 KADAR ISAK KHAN @ MATANWALA .. APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS Mr. Keshav Chavan, for the applicant. Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP for the State. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned APP who seeks time to take instructions whether next date of hearing is communicated to the complainant in terms of order dated 01/03/2024, stand over to 07/03/2024. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.339 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161 OF 2024 KADAR ISAK KHAN @ MATANWALA ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS ------------ Adv. Keshav Chavan for the applicant. Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the State. API Lamkhade, Shil Daighar Police Station. ------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 7, 2024 P.C. : 1. Learned APP submits on instructions of the Investigating Officer that the victim though was not available at the residential address as she is presently in Uttar Pradesh, however telephonically the victim has intimated that she is in need of legal aid assistance. 2. Accordingly, Advocate Saakshat Relekar is requested to appear on behalf of the victim and assist this Court. 3. List the application on 11.03.2024 fairly high on board. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 11: Diksha Rane 19.ia.339-24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.339 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161 OF 2024 KADAR ISAK KHAN @ MATANWALA ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS ------------ Adv. Keshav Chavan for the applicant. Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP for the State. Adv. Saakshat Relekar for the respondent no.2 (appointed advocate). CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 11, 2024 P.C. : At the request of Mr. Saakshat Relekar, who has just been served with the copy of the appeal, stand over to 12/3/2024 . (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 14: Urmila Ingale 907-ia-339-24.doc 2024:BHC-AS:12137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 339 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2024 KADAR ISAK KHAN @ MATANWALA APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. RESPONDENTS Mr. Keshav Chavan, for the applicant. Mr.Saakshat Relekar, for respondent no.2. Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP for the State. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2024 P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. This is an interim application for bail in respect of the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(i), 506, 363 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter 'IPC' for short) and under section 5(m) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter referred to as "POCSO Act") registered vide C.R. No. 19 of 2016 with Daighar Police Station. The interim application is opposed by learned APP and learned counsel who has been appointed by this Court to represent the complainant. The applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under sections 5(m) & 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. The applicant is convicted for other offences the sentence to which is to run concurrently. The applicant was arrested on 30/01/2016 and is now in custody for more than 8 years and 2 months. The applicant has undoubtedly been committed for a serious offence. The appeal has been admitted and will be heard finally in due course. The applicant has undergone custody for more than half of the sentence imposed by the trial Court up till now. Prior to the substitution of section 6 of POCSO Act with effect from 16/08/2019 substituted by Act 25 of 2019., the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault was rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. 2/5 Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 invited my attention to the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, for cogent reasons, the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant for such a serious offence. It is therefore submitted that the applicant is not entitled for bail and instead of enlarging the applicant on bail, the appeal itself be heard finally. My attention is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in State of U.P. Vs. Sonu Kushwaha 1 to contend that the trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty of offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under section 6 of POCSO Act. My attention is also invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in 2 Nawabuddin Vs. State of Uttarakhand to submit that no leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a Court of law. These decisions will undoubtedly guide this Court when the appeal is finally heard on merits. It is not possible for me to hear the appeal finally at this 1 Criminal Appeal No. 1633 of 2023 dated 05/07/2023 2 Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2022 dated 08/02/2022 stage considering the pendency of the old matters. The appeal is unlikely to be heard finally any time soon in the near future. Considering that the applicant is 70 years of age and has already undergone 8 years and 2 months of his substantive sentence, in my opinion, the applicant can be enlarged on bail. The applicant is not reported to have any criminal antecedents. Considering that the victim is residing in the same vicinity, on instructions, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant will reside outside Mumbai/ Mumbai Suburban and Thane districts. The statement is accepted. Hence, the following order :- O R D E R (a) The interim application is allowed. (b) The applicant-Kadar Isak Khan @ Matanwala in connection with C.R. No.19 of 2016 registered with Daighar Police Station shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. (c) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of 6 weeks in lieu of surety. (d) The applicant shall report to the trial Court once in a year, on the first Monday of the concerned month between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. commencing from April 2024. (e) The applicant shall not enter Mumbai/ Mumbai Suburban and Thane districts after being released on bail except for reporting to the trial Court. (f) The applicant shall inform the trial Court as well as the investigating officer the contact details as well as residential address while residing outside Mumbai/Mumbai Suburban and Thane districts. (g) The applicant shall remain present at the time of hearing of this appeal. The interim application is disposed of. I appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.Saakshat Relekar, the learned Advocate, who appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 at my request in this proceeding. His engagement be regularized by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 5: : 1 : 9.ABA-1461-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1461 OF 2021 Bharat Bajirao Pawar ….. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Kedar Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th JUNE, 2021 [Through Video Conferencing] P.C. : Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant in this application is already arrested and, therefore, this application has become infructuous. Considering this statement, the application is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3261 OF 2005. IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2490 OF 2004. IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.18649 OF 2004. Mr.Rajesh Vinayak Sawant : : Complainant versus Shri Ramachandra Ganesh Barve : : Respondent/. & ors. Applicants. Mr.S.B.Shetye for the Appellant/Complainant Ms.Pallavi Joshi i/by R.Bhargavan for Respondent No.2/Applicant. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : 13th September 2005. ORAL ORDER This application is filed by the original respondent for setting aside the order dated 10th 1 June 2005 which came to be passed in the application for condonation of delay and by which the delay was condoned. Counsel for the responden,t now applicant in this application, contended that even though the respondents were served, there advocate was busy some-where-else and, therefore, that order was required to be set aside. This is not a ground for setting aside the order. In any case that order was passed on merits in that application. It is open to the applicant/respondent to challenge that order in the appropriate proceedings. This civil application is dismissed. [D.G.DESHPANDE,J]

Order - Status 5: Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 873 of 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe .. Applicant. Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. H.P. Ingle I/by Mr. Prashant Goyal Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the State. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 15th May, 2017. (VACATION JUDGE) P.C. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with investigation of Crime No. 8 of 2017 registered with Meghwadi Police Station, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai under Section 406, 420 of IPC. On hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP, it appears that earlier there was First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Abhishek Rai on 6th November, 2016 bearing Crime No. 288 of 2016 registered with Police Station, Vanrai, Mumbai on similar allegations in which the applicant had approached this Court by filing ABA No. 288 of 2017. This Court on 5th May, 2017 has granted interim protection to the applicant on certain conditions. A perusal of the First Information Report in the present case would show that the allegations by and large are similar. The FIR was lodged by Mr. Rohit Sonik. The applicant is alleged to have committed misappropriation and breach of trust in respect of mobile handsets worth Rs.2,01,666/-. Considering the fact that in respect of similar allegations this Court had granted interim protection, the following order is passed: (i) By way of an interim relief, it is directed that in the event of arrest in connection with investigation of Crime No. 8 of 2017, Meghwadi Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount; (ii) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer on Monday and Friday between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. and as and when required by the Investigating Officer; and (iii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency and shall not tamper or influence the prosecution witnesses. Stand over to 8th June, 2017. (C.V. BHADANG,J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.873/2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe Applicant vs State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Hemant Ingle i.b Mr.Prashant Goyal for Applicant Mr.A.R.Kapadnis APP for State CORAM : PRAKASH D.NAIK, J. DATE : 8 JUNE 2017 P.C. By an order dated 15.5.2017 interim protection was granted to the Applicant. The Applicant was directed to attend the police station. The Advocate for the Applicant submitted that he has complied with the said directions. The learned APP submitted that the Investigating Officer is not present and he would like to take instructions in the matter. In view of the said circumstances, stand over to 28.6.2017. Ad interim order granted earlier to continue till then. (PRAKASH D.NAIK, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 …... …... Aditya Dilip Bagwe .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Prashant Goyel, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent – State. P.I. More, Meghwadi Police Station, present. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2017. P.C. : The applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 15th May, 2017. There was a condition to attend the investigating officer on Monday and Friday. Learned APP on instructions submits that the applicant has not complied with the condition of reporting. It is further submitted that the applicant has given false address and he was not traceable at the given address. Learned advocate for the applicant seeks time to take instruction. Hence, stand over to 7th July, 2017. 2 Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …... Mr.Prashant Goyal, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATED : JULY 25, 2017. …... P.C. : Stand over to 7th August, 2017. 2 This matter to be heard along with Anticipatory Bail Application No.288 of 2017. 3 Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then. 4 The applicant shall attend Meghwadi Police Station, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai, on Saturday 29th July, 2017 between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 670 OF 2017 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 Ahishek Rai ...Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Aditya Dilip Bagwe ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Prashant Goyal for the Applicant Mr. Ajay Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent-State Mr. S. C. Singh for the Intervener CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. MONDAY, 7th AUGUST, 2017 P.C. : Learned Counsel for the applicant to furnish a copy of the application being Criminal Application No. 288 of 2017 on the learned Counsel for the intervener on or before 11th August, 2017. Stand over to 16th August, 2017. Interim protection to continue till the next date. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 18th August, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time stand over to 07/09/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 7th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time stand over to 25/09/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 25th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time stand over to 12/10/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICTION NO.670 OF 2017 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 Abhishek Rai Intervener. In the matter between Aditya Dilip Bagwe Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents Mr. Shrinivas Singh i/b S.I.Singh for Intervener Mr.Hemant Ingale i/b Prashant Goyal for the applicant Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP for the State CORAM: A.M. BADAR, J. DATED: 12th OCTOBER, 2017 PC: Mr. Shrinivas Singh appears for the Intervener. At the request of the parties stand over to 16th November 2017. In the meanwhile interim order to continue. (A.M. BADAR, J )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : A.M. BADAR, J DATE : 16th November, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/12/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 WITH APPP NO. 670 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra . … Respondent Mr. Hemant Ingle i/b Prashant Goyal for Applicant. Mr. Ameet Palkar, APP for State. Mr. Nitin Dalvi for Intervener. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 16th JANUARY 2018. P.C.: 1] At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, stand over to 23rd January 2018. Interim relief to continue till then. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 29: Nalawade IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.670 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ..Applicant. vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr. Sugat i/by Prashant Goyal for the Applicant in ABA No.873/2017 and ABA No.288/2017. Mr.Nitin Dalvi i/by Shweta Singh for the Applicant in APPP No.670/2017. Mr. Ameet Palkar, APP. for the State. CORAM: A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 6th February, 2018. P.C. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Advocate on record is not keeping well and is unable to attend the Court today. At his request, S.O. to 20.2.2018. Interim relief to continue till then. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 31: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ..Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. T.N. Khandare i/b Prashant Goyal for Applicant. Mr. Ameet Palkar, APP for State. Mr. Nitin Dalvi for Original Complainant. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 20th FEBRUARY 2018. P.C.: 1] Applicant is directed to attend the Investigating Officer from 22nd February 2018 to 25th February 2018 between 10.00 a.m to 2.00 p.m and to join in the process of investigation. 2] Stand over to 1st March 2018. Interim relief to continue till then. (A.S.GADKARI, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 32: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ..Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. T.N. Khandare i/b Prashant Goyal for Applicant. Mr. Ameet Palkar, APP for State. Mr. Nitin Dalvi for Original Complainant. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 20th FEBRUARY 2018. P.C.: 1] Applicant is directed to attend the Investigating Officer from 22nd February 2018 to 25th February 2018 between 10.00 a.m to 2.00 p.m and to join in the process of investigation. 2] Stand over to 1st March 2018. Interim relief to continue till then. (A.S.GADKARI, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 23rd March, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 02/04/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 2nd April, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 17/04/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th April, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 26/04/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 40: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 26th April, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/06/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 42: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagwe ….Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ….Respondent. Mr. Sugat Ingale i/by Hemant Ingale for the Applicant. Mr. Ameet Palkar APP, for the RespondentState. Mr. Nitin Dalvi for the intervenor. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 25th JUNE, 2018. P.C.: It is submitted that the Advocate on record is in personal difficulty and is unable to attend the Court today. 2 At the request of the learned counsel, stand over to 11th July, 2018 for hearing. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 46: Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2017 Aditya Dilip Bagve Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Prashant Goyal, for the Applicant. Mr. Ameet Palkar, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM: A. S. GADKARI, J DATED: 11th JULY, 2018 PC: 1. By an order dated dated 15th May, 2017, the applicant was granted interim relief. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. Perused the record of investigation. The first information report is lodged by Mr. Rohit Sonik on 7th January, 2017. 2. It is the precise prosecution case against the applicant that, the applicant after gaining confidence of the first informant, took delivery of handsets/mobile phones of Vivo company amounting to Rs.2,01,666/ for sale and thereafter neither returned the said handsets nor paid the 1/3 4-ABA873-17.DOC consideration for the same. That the applicant thereafter did not contact to the first informant. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that this is pure and simple civil transaction. He submitted that the applicant has already repaid the amount to the first informant. He submitted that Mr. Rajesh Singh, the partner of Abhishek Rai had been to his shop for collecting the cash towards sale of mobile phones and as the applicant was unable to repay the amount to Mr. Rajesh Singh, he took away all the mobile phones, which were kept for display in the shop. He further submitted that the applicant did not have the said mobile phones as the same have been forcibly taken away by Mr. Rajesh Singh and therefore the applicant could not return the said handsets to the first informant. He, therefore, prayed that the applicant may be granted the prearrest bail. 4. The record of investigation indicates that apart from the first informant herein, there are other five other victims in the present crime, who have been cheated by the applicant by adopting similar modus operendi to the tune of 2/3 approximately Rs.21,07,000/ (Rs. Twenty one lakhs seven thousand only). This Court by an order dated 11th July, 2018 has rejected Anticipatory Bail Application No. 288 of 2017 preferred by the applicant in CR No.288 of 2016 registered with Vanrai police station, Mumbai wherein also similar modus operendi was adopted by the applicant. 5. After taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the serious allegations against the applicant and the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant does not deserve to be protected by prearrest bail. 6. The application is accordingly rejected. [A. S. GADKARI, J.] Santosh Subhash Kulkarni Digitally signed by Santosh Subhash Kulkarni Date: 2018.07.16 11:16:06 +0530

Order - Status 7: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.91 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5312 OF 2016 Transparent Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. … Petitioners Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Prathamesh B. Bhargude for the Petitioners. Mr. Prakash Shinde for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 20th JULY, 2017 [In Chamber at 2.35 pm] P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, there is no ground for review. Review Petition is rejected. (A.K. MENON, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2022 Sharathkumar Narayan Shetty …… Applicant. V/s Nitin Bhagwandas Shroff and Others …… Respondents. Mr. G.S. Hegde i/b Balkrishna Adyanthaya for the Applicant. Ms. Kanchan Pandare for the Respondents. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: AUGUST 04, 2022 P.C.:- 1] This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the Tenant/Defendant No.1. 2] Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are Trustees, whereas Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. 3] Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 initiated RAE Suit No.687/1111 of 2005 on 22/7/2005 against Applicant/Defendant No.1, and Defendant No.2 i.e. non-applicant No.8 on the ground of unlawful subletting, unauthorized additions and alterations, annoyance and illegal encroachment. Alleging that Defendant No.2 has vacated suit premises in 2007 which were sublet by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3, suit came to be amended by maintaining the case of subletting. The suit was resisted by the Applicant/Defendant No.1 vide Written Statement-Exhibit-19, thereby denying all allegations including that of unlawful subletting. It is also urged that earlier suit being RAE Suit No. 742/2351 of 1985 was dismissed in 1991-92. Vide additional Written Statement-Exhibit-34, claim put-forth as regards subletting to Defendant No.3 and surrender by Defendant No.2 of the suit premises was also denied. Third additional Written Statement at Exhibit-64 was filed, thereby denying the claim, alleging that Plaintiffs have no authority to file the suit. Defendant No.3 vide Written Statement – Exhibit-35 denied the suit claim and also denied execution of any agreement/understanding with Defendant No.1 so also her possession over the suit property. In the light of rival pleadings, issues were framed at Exhibit-22. The said issues and findings thereon by Trial Court read as under:- ISSUES FINDINGS 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that Defendant No.1 has unlawfully sublet the suit premises to Defendant No.2? In the negative. 2. Whether they further prove that Defendants have carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises without their permission in writing? In the negative. 3. Whether they further prove that Defendant No.1 is a continuous source of nuisance and annoyance to them and other occupiers of the suit property? In the negative. 4. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? In the negative. 24 CRA-371-2022.doc 5. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled for getting possession in respect of the suit premises? In the negative. 6. What order and decree? Suit is dismissed Additional issues A) Do the Plaintiffs prove that at present Defendant No.3 is illegally in possession of the suit premises and she is carrying on any business there? In the negative. 4] In support of the suit claim, Plaintiffs have examined P.W.1 – Devang at Exhibit-39, witness from the office of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ("MTNL") i.e. P.W. 2 Sadanand, Court Commissioner Nancy Pareira – P.W.3 and photographer Kunal – P.W.4. Plaintiffs have placed on record amended Schedule-I issued by the Charity Commissioner at Exhibit-42, Resolution of Trustees at Exhibit-43, Report of the Court Commissioner at Exhibit-7, Bills of the food items at Exhibit-44, letter dated 21/1/2009 received from MTNL at Exhibit-45, Bill dated 17/9/2008 at Exhibit-46 and photographs and bill at Exhibits-67 and 68 respectively. 5] Applicant/Defendant No.1 has entered into witness box and examined himself at Exhibit-89 and placed on record document Exhibit-72 medical papers, Exhibit-73 electricity bills, Exhibit-74 police license, Exhibit-75 telephone bills, Exhibit-76 shops and establishment license, Exhibit-78 – health license and Exhibit-80 photo copy of Power of Attorney. 6] Trial Court after appreciating pleadings and evidence on record, recorded findings that the Plaintiffs/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7 have failed to prove that Applicant/Defendant No.1 has unlawfully sublet the suit premises to Defendant No.2 by parting possession. On all counts, including that of additions and alterations to the suit premises, annoyance, Trial Court dismissed the suit. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court noticed that the conducting agreement between Applicant and Defendant No.3 entered into on 19/12/2007 is a business agreement. It is further observed that the said agreement does not transfer or assign tenancy rights in respect of suit premises to Defendant No.3. 7] Non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7 / original Plaintiffs preferred Appeal No.69 of 2017. Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court vide judgment impugned dated 4/5/2022 allowed the appeal. As such, this Revision. 8] Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel for the Applicant would strenuously urge that the Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment of the Small Causes Court, particularly on the issue pertaining to business conduct agreement entered into between Applicant/Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3. He has relied on documents produced by the Applicant viz medical papers, electricity bills, licenses issued by various public authorities and the photographs. According to him, merely because Defendant No.3 was permitted to run and manage business for Defendant No.1 i.e. Applicant, it cannot be said that sub-tenancy was created in favour of Defendant No.3 as neither permanently possession was parted nor compensation or rent is received from Defenant No.3. According to him, business conduct agreement was only to overcome difficulty faced by the Applicant because of his domestic and health issues. So as to substantitate his contentions, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty reported in 1987 (2) R.C.J. 644 so also in the matter of Bhairulal Balmukund Verma vs. Poonamchand Kasturchand Sancheti & Anr., reported in 1997 Bom. R.C. 270. 9] In addition to above, Mr. Hegde, Counsel appearing for the Applicant would invite my attention to the findings recorded by the Small Causes Court. According to him, after reappreciating evidence by the Appellate Bench, merely because different view was possible, suit for eviction came to be decreed. 10] Counsel for non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7/original Plaintiffs would support the order impugned, as according to her, recitals in the conduct agreement, evidence of the Plaintiffs has sufficiently established the case of subletting. 11] I have appreciated rival submissions. 12] Fact remains that Defendant No.2 has not resisted claim by filing Written Statement or examining himself as witness of the Applicant. Applicant denied any relation with Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 has specifically stated in his Written Statement that she has neither entered into agreement nor is in possession of the suit premises. As far as possession before 2007 with Defendant No.2 is concerned, P.W. 3 – Nancy Pareira has been examined as Court Commissiner who in her evidence specifically brought on record fact about management of business in the name of M/s Food Factory in the suit premises. P.W. 1 – Devang i.e. Plaintiff No.2. in his evidence has placed on record management of the said business by one Mr. Suraj Kundanraj based on the documents issued by the Sales Tax Authority. Fact remains that Defendant No.2 appears to be in exclusive possession of the suit property on the date of initiation of the suit. First appellate court in view of provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 clause (b) has rightly permitted production of documents in relation to the management of business by Defendant No.2 independently, as could be inferred from the document issued by the Sales Tax Department. 13] P.W. 3 – Nancy Pareira in her evidence has proved the report Exhibit-7. In the said report, she has stated about inquiry made by her about names and status of the employees in the suit premises when she visited on 19/08/2005. She has specifically stated that all the employees have stated that they are working with Defendant No.2. Though Applicant in his examination in chief has stated that he is maintaining muster of the employees and their salary register, said documents eventually are not produced by the Applicant on record to discharge his burden, after initial burden was discharged by the land owners i.e. non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7. 14] Though Applicant/Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 have specifically denied about parting with possession and receipt of possession for managing business in the capacity of sub-tenant, however, Plantiffs under Right to Information Act collected documents from the office of MTNL. Amongst other said documents contains business conduct agreement whereby Defendant No.3 has managed business in the name of "Dolce Vita". The witness from MTNL's Office i.e. P.W. 2- Sadanand has specifically deposed about providing of three landline connections as against above documents and Applications and has produced forms and copy of the agreement which was submitted by Defendant No.3 for getting landline connection. The said agreement was entered into between Applicant and Defendant No.3 on 19/12/2007. The agreement though is titled as conducting agreement, however, cumulative effect of the recitals, if appreciated viz. "AND WHEREAS THE Conductor herein who is having sufficient experience in managing hotel business approached the owner in the 2nd week of December, 2007 and shown her willingness to conduct the said running business and requested the owner to allow her to conduct the said running business for a period of three (3) years with effect from 19.12.2007, on conducting basis, as such this agreement deemed to have commenced from 19.12.2007." "2. That for the due observance and performance of the terms and conditions of the conducting of said running business, hereinafter incorporated, the Conductor shall deposit with the Owner, a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) on or before execution of this Agreement and acknowledgment of receipt of the same the Owner acknowledges by signing a receipt which is appeared in the last page of this Agreement and further the Owner shall refund said security deposit of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) to the Conductor, upon the expiration of these presents by efflux of time or by earlier determination thereof, subject to always to the conditions that said security deposit of Rs 5,00,000/- shall not bear interest of whatsoever nature; "3. The Conductor admit to pay to the Owner, the monthly royalty of Rs 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per month for first year and there shall be 5% increase in monthly royalty which will be for second year Rs 31,500/- per month and for third year Rs 33,075/- per month and said payment shall be remitted to the Owner on first week of every month, without fail for any reason. In the event the Conductor is complying all terms and conditions mentioned hereinabove, then the Owner is having option to extend the period of this Agreement for the period of further three years, subject to condition that there shall be increase of 10% (ten percent) on the said monthly royalty of third year in fourth year and futher 10% increase of the monthly royalty of 5th year and again 10% per cent increase of monthly royalty of 6th year." "4. That it has been agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Conductor shall be liable to pay the water charges, license fees, electricity charges and society's maintenance charges in respect of the said business premises, during the subsistence of this Agreement at his own costs, in the name of the Owner and shall give the receipt of said payments to the Owner as and when demanded for; "5. The Conductor do hereby convenant with the Owner that the Conductor shall pay the Income Tax, as well as Sales Tax, which number obtained in her own name during the subsistence period of this agreement and shall pay the same, at any event, shall not make said business and/or said premises for whatsoever nature encumbrances and further shall pay such other charges which may be imposed by concerned authorities and may become payable in respect of said hotel business, during the subsistence of this Agreement." "8. That the Conductor doth hereby further covenant with the Owner that during the subsistence of these presents, the Conductor shall not sale, assign, transfer, mortgage or create any lien in respect of the said hotel together with its premises and/or the Conductor shall not do any act in any manner which is likely to affect the rights, title, interest, good-will, tenancy of the said hotel in any manner whatsoever nor shall Conductor sub-let, re-let, under-let or create any third party interest either by way of leave and license or otherwise in respect of the said hotel or its premises or any part thereof." gives positive impression that said agreement is of subtenancy and not business facilitation agreement. The fact that conduct agreement was entered into between Applicant and Defendant No.3, Defendant No.3 getting three land line connections issued and installed in her name, based on the said agreement, the fact that Applicant has parted possession to Defenant No.3, the business conduct agreement was entered into at the request of Defendant No.3 and not as per the requirement of Applicant, accepting security deposit of Rs 5,00,000/-, fixed royalty of Rs 30,000/- per month to be payable by Defendant No.3 to the Applicant, 5% cumulative rise on said amount for each year, initially for three years, thereafter 10% rise in last royalty paid, sufficiently establishes agreement of subletting. The recitals in the agreement expressly provides for exclusive right to possession or interest in the suit premises of Defendant No.3 by the Applicant. Obligation in the form of royalty which will be increased every year with cumulative rise sufficiently speaks of receipt of compensation/rent with advance deposit of Rs 5 lakhs. 15] As such, agreement and telephone connections has prompted the Appellate Court to believe that Defendant No.3 is in possession of the suit premises. As such, act of the Applicant tenant that of giving possession of the tenanted accommodation to Defendant No.3, keeping the Plaintiffs in dark has rightly prompted the Appellate Court to form an opinion that the Applicant in clandestine manner transferred possession to Defendant No.3 who is a stranger to Plaintiffs/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7. As such, Appellate Court has rightly formed an opinion of subletting of the property. Appellate Court has drawn support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in [1998] 3 SCC 1. Agreement entered into between Applicant and Defendant No.3 by no stretch of imagination can be termed as permissive possession and not subletting. Possession handed over by the Applicant is in lieu of not only deposit of Rs 5 lakhs but also for monthly rent in the form of royalty. 16] P.W. 1 / Plaintiff No.2 in my opinion has discharged burden of demonstrating sub-tenancy based on aforesaid documents. Once the Plaintiffs have discharged the burden, then same shift on the Applicant who is duty bound to prove that parting of possession to Defendant No.3 was permissive i.e. within four corners of law. Rather parting of possession was without consent of the landlord and in lieu of fixed royalty to be received by Applicant. As such, support drawn by Mr. Hegde from the aforesaid two judgments of this Court in the matter of Dipak Banerjee and Bhairulal Balmukund Verma cited supra will be hardly of any assistance. Apart from above, Apex Court in its judgment in the matter of Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217 has already held that if a party hands over possession of tenanted premises without consent of the landlord or keeping the landlord in dark in lieu of the compensation, the issue of subletting can be inferred. Applicant through his evidence in defense has not brought anything to the contrary on record. Rather from the above discussion Non-applicant/landlord has established the case of subtenancy. 17] In the wake of aforesaid observations, particularly when Plaintiffs have already discharged their burden of demonstrating case of subletting, Applicant was unable to explain about three landline connections provided in the suit premises. 18] In this backdrop, judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court appears to be just and proper and in tune with the law laid down. That being so, no error of jurisdiction could be noticed. Revision Application as such fails and same stands rejected. 19] Interim relief is extended up to 31st December, 2022. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )