All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5610 OF 2021 Somnath Baburao Mayrane. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent- State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 29 July 2022. P.C. : The learned APP informs that the Petitioner was released on emergency (Covid-19) parole but he has not returned back and is absconding. As per the Government Resolution dated 4 May 2022, the said policy is discontinued. Therefore, no relief can be granted. Writ petition is rejected. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J DATE : 25th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to CMIS date. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent Adv. Ashwini C. Pawar i/b Akshar Laws For Petitioner Mrs. Usha Balasaheb Khandagale for Respondent in person present in court CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 7th June, 2019 P.C. : Matter to be placed on 21/06/2019 on supplementary board as a last chance. In the meantime, Ad-interim relief if any to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent Aseem Naphade a/w Ms. Ashwini C. Pawar, Advocate Akshar Laws For Petitioner Smt. Vasudha Narvekar, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 21st June, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 09/07/2019 on Supplementary Board a/w cawst 23274/2018 for Passing Order. In the meantime Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10094 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10095 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1540 OF 2019 Bharat Jethalal Maniar ] Petitioner Vs. Usha Balasaheb Khandagale & Ors. ] Respondents ….. Mr. Assem Naphade a/w Arun H. Mehta i/b Akshar Laws, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Vasudha C. Narvekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ….. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 9TH JULY, 2019. P.C. Heard Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Narvekar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, at length. The Petitions were heard on 21st June, 2019 and were kept today for passing orders. Mr. Naphade, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw these Petitions and Civil Applications for amendment with liberty to file Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. He assures that within two weeks from today, Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai will be filed. He states that as the petitioner was prosecuting these Petitions in this Court bona fide, time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting these Petitions from 8th June, 2017 till date may be excluded while considering the issue of limitation. Ms. Narvekar states that in case the Court is inclined to grant liberty, it may be made clear that grant of liberty shall not be construed as an expression of merit either way and that all contentions of the first respondent may be expressly kept open. In view thereof, on the motion made by Mr. Naphade, Petitions and Civil Applications are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is made clear that grant of liberty shall not be construed as an expression of merit either way. All contentions of the first respondent including maintainability of the Review Petition are expressly kept open. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner files Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, within two weeks from today, the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting these Petitions bona fide in this Court from 8th June, 2017 till date i.e till 9th July, 2019 shall be excluded while considering the issue of limitation. The Petitions and Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. All the parties, including the Small Causes Court to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Order - Status 7: ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2011 Pradip Shankar Rao @ Shervegar. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents None for petitioner. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 31, 2011. P.C. None appears for the Petitioner. Office note indicates that office objections have not been removed. We grant one week's time to the Petitioner by way of indulgence to remove office objections, failing which the Writ Petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court. Subject to above, Writ Petition to proceed as per its turn under appropriate caption. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

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.)