All Cases

Order - Status 5: 17 wp 444-20=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2020 Mukhtar @ Raj Zakir Khan … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,& N.R.BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 28th JANUARY 2020 P.C. Issue notice to Respondent, returnable on 06.03.2020. Learned APP waives notice for State. High Court Legal Aid Committee to appoint panel Advocate for the Petitioner. (N.R.BORKAR,J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: 23-cr-wp-444-20.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2020 Mukhtar @ Raj Zakir Khan … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ---------------- Mr. Sagar S. Bhandare (appointed) for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent – State. ---------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2020. P.C. 1] For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4256 of 2018, which we have allowed, this petition can be conveniently disposed of with following directions: "We fnd both orders are unsustainable and the same are quashed and set aside. We direct the frst authority to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to it." 2] Here, the prisoner was under trial from 19th April 2016 to 2 nd July 2018 and thereafter, as a convict from 3rd July 2018 onwards. Dinesh Sherla 1/2 3] Thus, he has never been released either on bail or on any other leave and hence, the adverse police report against him is not justifed. 4] Hence, with similar liberty and directions as mentioned in our earlier order supra, we partly allow this petition and dispose of it. 5] This order be communicated to the prisoner in Jail. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 67 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2006 Hanmant Shankar Jivane ... Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. --- Mrs. Sonia Miskeen, Appointed Advocate, Legal Aid Committee, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent. CORAM: V.M.KANADE & P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED: 10th APRIL,2012 P.C.:- 1. The Applicant has filed this application through Jail. The Applicant is seeking bail. The Applicant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C and sentence to suffer R.I. for life. 2. We have perused the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court. There is sufficient material on record to indicate the involvement of the present applicant. The prosecution case is that the applicant was found to be in possession of counterfeit currency notes valued at Rs. 12 lacs. 3. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to consider the application. His application for bail is rejected. Criminal Appeal, however is directed to be placed on Final Hearing Board on the week commencing from 23rd April, 2012. 4. Application is accordingly disposed of. (P.D.KODE,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2011 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.93 OF 2009 Deepak Balkrishna Vahikar and another ..Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. And Devdeep Properties ..Applicant. Ms. Vrunda Surve with Ms. S.P. Potbhare i/b Mr. Priten P. Killedar for the Petitioners. Mr. Vinay A. Sonpal, A panel counsel for Respondents 1 and 4. Dr. Sadhna Mahashabde for Respondents 2 and 3 Mr. Sameer Khale for the Applicant. ...... .... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 8 July 2011. P.C. : The Applicant seeks permission to cut 2 trees. The report of the expert committee is on record. We grant permission to the Applicant subject to the following conditions: (a) The Applicant shall file a written undertaking of an authorized representative stating (i) That in compliance with the report of the expert committee, three new trees shall be planted for every existing tree to be felled; (ii) That the trees to be replanted shall be of local species; (iv)The trees which are to be replanted shall not be small saplings, but shall be half grown trees of a sufficient growth which shall ensure their survival; and (v) The Applicant shall continue to maintain the aforesaid trees for a period of two years after the transplantation or, as the case may be, uprooting of the trees. (b) A copy of the undertaking shall be supplied to the Petitioner and to the Municipal Corporation and shall be placed on the record of these proceedings within a period of two weeks from today; (c) The Tree Officer of the Pune Municipal Corporation shall be personally responsible for verifying as to whether the undertakings which have been furnished to the Court have been duly complied with. The Tree Officer shall bring to the notice of the Court any dereliction on the part of the deponent in complying with the undertaking. Subject to the undertaking being filed in the aforesaid terms and conditional thereon, the Civil Application is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2896 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2015 .................... ................... The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant Versus Mirabai Rajendra Khairnar and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Pritesh Borhade, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : SHRI. MILIND N. JADHAV, J. SHRI. D.N. KHER (COURT RECEIVER) & SHRI. S.K. DHEKALE (Dy. REGISTRAR, COURT RECEIVER) DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2021. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Parties have tendered the consent terms dated 11.12.2021 signed by the Appellant, Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 along with their respective Advocates. The said consent terms are taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. The undertakings given in the consent terms are accepted. Ajay Award be drawn according to the Consent terms. First Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. In view of disposal of Appeal, pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Statutory deposit be transferred to the concerned Tribunal within a period of one week from today. Court fee be refunded as per rules. [ S.K. DHEKALE ] [ D.N. KHER] [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2021.12.11 19:27:34 +0530

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Ms.Saili Dhuru for Applicant Mr.Nitin B.Patil APP for State/Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 29th April, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant , stand over to 30/04/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: Board Sr.No.:-0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 30th April, 2024 P.C. : Matter did not reach till the court time was over. Hence adjourned. Stand over to 02/05/2024. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: Board Sr.No.:-0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 2nd May, 2024 P.C. : Matter did not reach till the court time was over. Hence adjourned. Stand over to 03/05/2024. on Supplementry Board ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1173 OF 2024 Snehal Somnath Wagh ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent _____ Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil a/w. Rohin. R. Chauhan i/b. Saili Dhuru for Applicants in both ABAs. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for State/Respondent. _____ CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 3 MAY 2024 P.C. :- Both these applications are decided by this common order as they arise out of the same registered offence. The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.15 of 2024 registered at Khadakwasla Police Station, Pune city, on 26.02.2024, under Sections 302, 498- A and 109 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Nitin Patil, learned APP for the State. The F.I.R. is lodged by one Tarabai Ilag. She has stated that her younger daughter Suvarna was married to Somnath Wagh. The present applicant Ranjana is the first wife of Somnath and the applicant Snehal is their daughter. It is alleged that, Somnath told the informant that he wanted a son and the applicant Suvarna was not able to give him a son and, therefore, he wanted to marry the informant's daughter Suvarna. After marriage, Somnath and Suvarna had one daughter and one son. It is alleged that Suvarna used to tell the informant telephonically that, both these applicants used to instigate Somnath and he used to abuse and beat her. The applicants used to harass her. On one occasion, Somnath assaulted her brutally after disrobing her. In short, Somnath was treating her with cruelty. On 25.02.2024, both of them died i.e. Somnath and Suvarna died in suspicious circumstances. As of today, the prosecution case is that both of them had gone for a walk. Somnath assaulted Suvarna with a stone on her head causing her death and then he committed suicide by hanging himself. Their dead bodies were noticed by others and then police were informed. On this basis the F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that, there is absolutely no material against the present applicants in respect of the main offence of murder and the alleged suicide committed by Somnath. Learned APP submitted that the investigation is in very initial stage. As of today, it is not possible to reach a definite conclusion. He submitted that, more investigation is necessary to find out what exactly had happened. Even postmortem notes are awaited. Learned APP produced the investigation papers before the Court. I have considered these submissions. The statements of children of Suvarna and Somnath are recorded. They have not supported the prosecution case. Apart from that, there are statements of two witnesses who have indicated that Somnath might be suspecting Suvarna's character which had resulted in this incident. Thus, as of today, sufficient doubt is created about the applicants' involvement in the offence. However, the investigating agency needs sufficient opportunity to consider all the aspects of this matter. Therefore, as of today, instead of disposing of these applications, ad-interim relief can be granted to the applicants till the next date with directions to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order. O R D E R i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.15 of 2024 registered at Khadakwasla Police Station, Pune city, till the next date, the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their executing P. R. bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount. ii) This order shall operate till 28/06/2024. iii) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station from 20/05/2024 to 22/05/2024 between 1.00p.m. to 5.00p.m. and thereafter as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation. iv) Stand over to 28/06/2024. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 13: : 1 : 35-ABA-1173-24+.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1173 OF 2024 Snehal Somnath Wagh …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent ….. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1182 OF 2024 Ranjana Somnath Wagh …..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate i/b. Saili Dhuru for the Applicants. Smt. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Nilkanth Rajaram Jagtap, Police Inspector, Warje Malwadi police station, Pune. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 28th JUNE, 2024 P.C. : The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.15/2024 registered at Khadakwasla police station (which was subsequently investigated by Warje Malwadi Police Station) under Sections 302, 498-A, 109 read with 34 of IPC. On the previous occasion, the Applicants were protected by way of ad-interim order dated 3.5.2024 and both of them were directed to report to the police station. Learned APP, on instructions, states that both the Applicants have reported to the police station and have cooperated with the investigation. Learned APP, on instructions of the I.O., further makes a statement that there is no evidence against the present Applicants and the investigating agency does not want to arrest them in connection with this offence. The statement is recorded. In view of this statement, learned counsel for the Applicants does not press these Applications. Hence, the Applications are disposed of as not pressed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2024.07.03 11:25:34 +0530

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH CIVIL COURT OF APPELLATE JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLI APPLICATION NO. 1910 OF 2006 IN 10.00 0.5 2005 WI WRIT PETITION NO. 4960 OF 2005 Shri Rajendra Shrikant Parulekar ılekar Ap Applicant Vs. The Hon. Chairman nairman Re Respondent Mr. K.K. Malpathak ak for applicant. Mr. Ganesh K. Sovani for respondent. CORAM: M: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : August 2, 2006. P.C.: . The application is misconceived and the same is rejected with liberty to the applicant to take appropriate steps on the criminal side. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.2238 OF 2014 Omprakash Bajrangi Tiwari ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ********** Mr.M.S. Prasad for Petitioner Mrs. P.H. Kantharia -APP for the State ********** CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JULY 23, 2014 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. This petition is filed for quashing of FIR registered by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been registered with the Kurla Police Station vide C.R. No. 23 of 2014. It is submitted that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were adults when the complaint was filed and in the complaint it is alleged that since the Petitioner had given false assurance and promise of marriage, Respondent No.2 had given her consent to have sexual intercourse with him. It is submitted that now the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have married. Our attention is invited to the marriage certificate which is annexed to the petition. It is submitted that, therefore, now the provisions of section 420 and 376 are not attracted. Secondly, it is submitted that Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit and has stated that the said vat (WP 2238 of 2014) complaint was filed by her on account of misunderstanding that the Petitioner was not willing to marry her. In the affidavit, she has also stated that this was the mistaken belief since the Petitioner has now married with Respondent No.2 and, therefore, the allegation made by her was on account of misunderstanding. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the offences punishable under section 420 and 376 are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab and another [2014 AIR SCW 2065] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. We have interviewed Respondent No.2. She has stated that they are living happy married life and they are staying separately in a rental premises. We are of the view that the quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet is in the interest of both the Complainant as well as her husband. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The FIR which is registered by the Kurla Police Station vide C.R. No.23 of 2014 for the offence punishable under section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which has resulted in filing of the charge-sheet / Sessions Case pending in the Sessions Court, Mumbai are quashed. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [P.D. KODE,J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2559 OF 2007 Mr.Ravindra M.Vaity and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. Deepak R.Shinde and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.K.S.Patil advocate for Applicants Ms.A.T.Jhaveri A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 P.C. Heard both sides. The applicants-original accused have preferred this application for setting aside the order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in C.C.No. 19/M/2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate referred the said case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Senior Police Inspector, Andheri Police Station for investigation and report. The learned APP on instructions states that the police have investigated the said case and thereafter they have submitted report to the Magistrate for grant of "B" Summary. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to entertain the present application. However, liberty is given to the applicants to challenge the order of the Magistrate on the application for "B" Summary, if adverse to them. It is made clear that this application is being disposed of without entering into the merits of the matter. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]