Tag: Criminal Bail/Interim Bail

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1279 OF 2018 Chetan Bhanudas Randhire ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Adv. Mayur D. Sapkale For Applicant Adv. A. A. TAkalkar APP for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 4th July, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned APP, Stand over to 11/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1279 OF 2018 Chetan Bhanudas Randhire ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Adv. Mayur D. Sapkale For Applicant Adv. A. A. Takalkar APP for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 11th July, 2018 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. Stand over to 18/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: BA.1279-2018.doc Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1279 OF 2018 CHETAN BHANUDAS RANDHIRE ..APPLICANT Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT Mr. M.D. Sapkale for applicant. Ms. A.A. Takalkar, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 9th August 2018. P.C.: 1] This is an application under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C for bail in CR No.I216 of 2016 dated 6.12.2016 registered with Thanenagar Police Station, Thane now transferred under sections 420, 181, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the chargesheet. 3] The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the role attributed to the present is same and/or similar to that has been assigned to coaccused Amar M. Bhadrige who has been released on by by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by its Order dated 6th March 2017. The learned APP fairly conceded to the said fact. 1/2 4] Perusal of the chargesheet would indicate that, the present applicant has been assigned with same and/or similar role as that of the coaccused Amar M. Bhadrige who has been directed to be released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by its Order dated 6th March 2017 and therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Hence, the following Order: a] Applicant Chetan Bhanudas Randhire be released on his executing P.B. and S.B of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amiount. b] After his release from Jail, the applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every first Monday of the month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 hours till conclusion of trial. c] The applicant shall furnish his photograph, address proof and shall not involve in any such offence. 5] Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sangpal Gulabrao Jamnik ] Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Ms. Mayuri Hatle, for the Applicant. Smt.Rutuja Abmekar, APP for the State. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J DATE : 12th OCTOBER, 2022. P.C. 1] Since the offences invoke against the Applicant are under the provisions of POCSO Act, let the complainant be added as party-Respondent No.2. 2] After necessary amendment is being carried out, Issue notice to Respondent No.2 returnable on 29.11.2022. 3] Let the learned APP intimate the complainant through the Investigating Officer about her impleadment in the application and also apprise her of her right of being represented through counsel of her choice or through legal aid. [BHARATI DANGRE, J]

Order - Status 6: Urmila Ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2022.11.30 10:52:53 +0530 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2501 OF 2021 Mr. Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik ..Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms. Mayuri D. Hatl,e for applicant. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for respondent-State. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2022 P.C. : 1. The Learned APP submits that the complainant has been served and she wants to be represented through legal aid. Mr. Akshay Pai is requested to appear on behalf of the complainant and represent her. 2. List the matter on 06/12/2022. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 6th December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 16/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Ms. Mayuri D. Hatle for Applicant. Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP for State. Mr. Akshay Pai for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 16th December, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 20/12/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 20th December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 05/01/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2501 OF 2021 SAGAR @ SANGPAL GULABRAO JAMNIK ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS ------------ Ms. Mayuri D. Hatle for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Pai for respondent No.2. Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the State. ------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2023. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application. A request is made to expedite the trial as the applicant is in custody since 22/09/2020. The FIR is lodged on 28/07/2020. Considering that the applicant is in custody for more than 2 years and 3 months, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from today. In any case, considering that the applicant is incarcerated for this long a period, the trial Court is requested to record the evidence of the child within a period of one month from the date when this order is produced on record. 3. Liberty to apply for bail in case the trial does not substantially proceed during the period of six months from today. 4. Subject to what is observed hereinabove, the application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of. 5. I appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Pai, learned advocate, who was requested to appear on behalf of the victim. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik Versus...Applicant ...RespondentThe State Of Maharashtra...Respondent ____ None for the Applicant Ms. Anamika Mlahotra, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : $28^{text{th}}$ AUGUST 2023. P.C. : The letter dated 5 th July 2023 is received from District Judge-7 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, for extension of one year time for disposal of Special (POCSO) Case No. 506/2020. Considering the reasons mentioned in the letter, one year time is extended to dispose of Special (POCSO) Case No. 506/2020. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 7: 503-ba-1383-18 Nalawade FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1383 OF 2018 Pradip A. Ramchandani vs. The State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.N. Naik i/by R.D.Suryawanshi for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the RespondentState. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th June, 2018 P.C. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, during the pendency of the present application the police have submitted charge sheet. In view of the change in circumstance, he seeks leave to withdraw the present application with liberty to file a fresh application for bail before the Trial Court. Leave and liberty granted. Disposed off as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. (A.S.GADKARI, J.) Page-1/1

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 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1160 OF 2017 Isakivelu Pechhimuttu Nadar And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 5th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 14/06/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. BAIL APPLICATION NO.1160 OF 2017 Isakivelu Pechhimuttu Nadar & Ors. .. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …... Ms. Vinaya Padwal, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP for the Respondent – State. …... CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATED : JUNE 14, 2017. P.C. : Learned advocate for the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants have been released on bail by the trial Court. She, therefore, seeks withdrawal of this application. The application is allowed to be withdrawn. Bail Application is disposed of as withdrawn. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 27th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/07/2017. 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 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 6th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 26/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr Respondent Y.R.Mishra i/by Lokegaonkar Upendra Anant For Applicant Deepali Pathak i/by Purnima H Kantharia Respondent No.2 H.M.Pethe, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 20th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand Over to 02/08/2017. Supplementary Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Y.R.Mishra i/by Lokegaonkar Upendra Anant For Applicant Purnima H Kantharia Respondent No.2 H.M.Pethe, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 2nd August, 2017 P.C. : Stand Over to 04/08/2017 First On Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. …Respondents Mr. Y. R. Mishra i/b. Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar for the applicant. Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the respondent – State. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia a/w. Ms. Deepali Patankar for respondent no.2. PI Chavan, Crime Branch Thane City, Anti Robbery Squad present. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 4 th AUGUST, 2017. P.C. : This is an application in connection with CR No.II111/2016 registered with Kasarvadavali Police Station, Thane. The offences were registered under sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b) of Atomic Energy Act. The applicant was arrested on 24th December, 2016 and since then he is in custody. The prosecution case is that on 24th November, 2016, one of the informant of the complainant brought one sample piece of iron like metal which was weighing about 32 grams. The informant informed him that there are many more quantities of such metal available with the persons from whom he has availed the said sample piece. On 24th November, 2016, the sample piece was forward to the Board of Radiations Isotope Technology (BRIT) / Bhabha Atomic Research and Energy Department (BARC) and got confirmation about the said material/metal. On 6th December, 2016, a report was submitted to the Thane Crime Branch by BRIT/BARC, the said report states that the material was Depleted Uranium and used for civilian uses such as counter weights of Aircraft, Shielding in medical radiation therapy and Industrial radiography material equipments, etc. It is alleged that being prescribed material license was required to be obtained from the Department of Atomic Energy if material is beyond 1000 kg. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20th December, 2016, the applicant and the other accused were apprehended while they were in process of selling the Depleted Uranium to the purchaser. The material was seized by the police. The applicant was arrested on 24th December, 2016. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody from date of arrest and investigation is completed and further detention is not necessary. It is submitted that the offence under section 24 of Atomic Energy Act as alleged by the prosecution is punishable with maximum imprisonment upto 5 years. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Although, it is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was found in possession of material on 20th December, 2016. He was arrested on 24th December, 2016. There was no reason for the investigating agency to arrest him after a period of four days. It is further submitted that the applicant is carrying on family business ship breaking, aircraft breaking. The applicant is the Director of Kehav Ispat Pvt. Ltd. which is in the business of trading in Iron NA Steel Etc. It is further submitted that the applicant was illegally detained by the police from 20th December, 2016 till 23rd December, 2016. It is submitted that alleged Depleted Uranium which is found from the custody of the applicant is weighing about 8.861 kg. Which is used for civilian uses such as counter weights of Aircraft, Shielding in medical radiation therapy and Industrial radiography material equipments, etc. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the report issued by the BRIT / BARC dated 6th December, 2016. It is submitted that the Depleted Uranium was not illegally obtained or smuggled. It is submitted that the material was obtained officially from the auction of the scrap of old aircraft which was done by the Indian Airlines through MSTS (Government of India Enterprises). In the said auction, heap of scrap aircraft was purchased by one Mrs. Punshi, the same was admittedly sold to the applicant in the year 2006. As per the prosecution case, admittedly, the applicant was in possession of the said Uranium from 2006 till it was recovered by the investigating machinery on 20th December, 2016. It is submitted that in the report dated 6th December, 2016 it is stated that the material sold was Depleted Uranium and the same is used for civilian uses. In the report, it is stated that the sample being weighing about 32 grams which analysed by non destructive gamma spectrometry method and the sample was found to be Depleted Uranium. It is further stated that this fact Uranium is byproduct of nuclear fuel reprocessing cycle and are used for civilian uses which include counter weights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment, container for transporting radioactive materials etc. Being prescribed material, license is required to be obtained from Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) beyond 1000 kg. It is also stated that clearance is required from Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), if the quantity exceeds the exempted quantity as notified under AERB directive, from radiation safety view point. It is further submitted that the prosecution case is connoted that the alleged material was initially recovered from one unknown person which appears to be some informant of the police machinery. It is submitted that the police have not disclosed the person from whom initially uranium sample was recovered. It is submitted that considering the fact quantity is below 1000 kg., hence license is not required. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case Sanjay Chandra V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1 . Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v/s. State of Rajasthan 2 . In the decision of Apex Court the Supreme Court has considered the issue of custody of the accused and the parameter to be considered for grant of bail. In the second decision, the Rajasthan High Court had granted bail to the accused who was involved in the similar crime and he was found in possession of the material for which provisions of Atomic Energy Act was made applicable. The said accused was granted bail by the said High Court considering the fact that the offence is punishable with imprisonment of five years and the accused was in custody from the date of arrest. 4. Learned APP strongly opposed the application for bail. It is 1 AIR (2012) 1 SCC 40 2 Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2016 submitted that the applicant is involved in serious crime. Reliance is placed on notification dated 28th April, 2016 which is clarified by notification dated 30th June, 2017. It is submitted even for possession of lesser quantity, licence is required and the material which is recovered from the accused was a prescribed substance. It is submitted that it is dangerous to possess such material since it is hazardous to the health of the citizens. It is further submitted that such material can be utilised for manufacturing of bomb etc. It is submitted that statement of various persons were recorded wherein it is disclosed that the attempts have been made by the accused / applicant to sell the said material to various persons. It is further submitted that the applicant was aware that he is required to obtained permission from the concerned authorities to possess such material. The applicant had carried out test in respect of the material in private laboratory in the year 2016 and therefore he ought to have surrendered the said material to the concerned authority. It is further submitted that although the offence is punishable for imprisonment upto five years, gravity of the offence may be considered and bail may not be granted. I have perused the documents on record. It is pertinent to note that the applicant is arrested on 24th December, 2016. The investigation is completed and the chargesheet has been filed. It is admitted position that the maximum punishment which is awarded for the offence under section 24 of Atomic Energy Act is five years. The applicant had purchased the subject material from one Mrs. Punshi who had purchased same in official auction by the Indian Airlines through MSTS (Government of India Enterprises) in the year 2006. It is the prosecution case is that the applicant has been in possession of the said material since 2006 till it is recovered by the police. It is not the case of the prosecution at any point of time that the applicant had tried to misuse the same. The report of BARC /BIRT dated 6th December 2016 indicates that it is Depleted Uranium and being used genrally for civilian purposes stipulated therein. It is true that the prosecution has relied upon the subsequent notification which states that the licence is reuired. However, what can be considered is that the maximum punishment prescribed under Atomic Energy Act is five years and the applicant is in custody for seven months. The statement of various persons are recorded. It appears that trial may not be concluded in short span of time. The applicant has been in business of scrap since beginning which is the family business and the source of uranium is the auction sale conducted by the Government of India Undertaking and the alleged material was not obtained by illegal method from any illegal source. Taking into consideration all the documents, case of bail is made out. Hence, I pass following order; :: ORDER :: (i) Bail Application No.1267 of 2017 is allowed. (ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.II111/2016 registered with Kasarvadavali Police Station, Thane on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only.) with one or more sureties in the like amount. (iii) The applicant is directed to report the concerned police station once in a month on the first Saturday of the month between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm till further orders. (iv) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash security in the sum of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only.) in lieu of sureties for a period four weeks from today. (v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and / or prosecution witnesses. (vi) The applicant shall attend the trial Court on date of hearing of the case. (vii) Application stands disposed of. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ..Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra . ..Respondents Ms. Sheetal Gaikar i/b. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicant. Mr. A.A.Palkar, APP for the State. CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 26th AUGUST, 2022. P.C. Issue Notice to Respondent No.2. Learned APP to make an endeavor to intimate the next date of hearing to the Respondent No.2, through the officer of the concerned police station. Stand over to 13.09.2022. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Shri. Tushar Sonawane for Applicant. Shri. A. A. Palkar, APP for the State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH D. NAIK J DATE : 11th October, 2022 P.C. : Await service. Stand over to 20/10/2022. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicant. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State. $cdots cdots cdots$ $cdots cdots cdots$ CORAM: N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 20 OCTOBER 2022 $P.C. :=$ The Investigating Officer shall intimate about the filing of the present application and the next date of hearing of the application to the respondent No. 2. $2.$ Stand over to 16 November 2022. $(N.R. BORKAR, J.)$

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for Respondent-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 16th November, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 05/12/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra ••• Respondent Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicant. Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr. Ravi Rajulwar, API, Sangola Police Station, Solapur. CORAM : R.N.LADDHA, J. DATE : 5 th December 2022 P.C. : The Investigating Officer is directed to inform the first informant about filing of the present application within a week. Stand over to 15 th December 2022. (R.N. LADDHA, J) Lata Panjwani, P.S.

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore Versus The State of Maharashtra Applicant. Respondent Mr. Tushar Sonawane, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr. Ashish Satpute, Legal Aid Counsel appointed. CORAM : R. N. Laddha, J. DATE: 15 th December 2022 Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2022.12.16 11:15:15 +0530 P.C.: Learned APP informs this Court that the Applicant is not in a position to engage private Advocate and requests to provide legal aid. Mr.Ashish Satpute, Counsel from the Legal Aid Panel is appointed as Advocate to espouse the cause of the Applicant. Office is directed to serve a copy of the Application to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the Applicant. Page No. 1 of 2 15 th December 2022 36 ba 1685.22.docx Stand over to 9 th January 2023. (R. N. LADDHA, J.) L.S.Panjwani, P.S. Page No. 2 of 2 15 th December 2022

Order - Status 15: ba 1685.22 speaking.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore Versus The State of Maharashtra Applicant. Respondent CORAM : R. N. Laddha, J. (IN CHAMBER) DATE: 5 th January 2023 P.C.: The matter is taken in chamber suo moto. In Paragraphs 1 & 2 of the order dated 15 th December 2022, wherever the words 'Applicant' is there, it be replaced by words 'Respondent No.2'. The order dated 15 th December 2022 stands corrected accordingly. (R. N. LADDHA, J.) L.S.Panjwani, P.S. Page No. 1 of 1 15 th December 2022

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Tushar Sonawane a/w Pooja Satpute for Applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State. Mr. Amit Icham i/b Ashish Satpute for Complainant. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 8th February, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 15/02/2023 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Tushar Sonawane a/w Pooja Satpute for Applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State. Mr. Ashish Satpute for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 15th February, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 17/02/2023 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: Urmila Ingale 22.ba 1685.22.doc URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2023.02.17 14:22:07 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ...Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. Tushar Sonawane a/w Ms.Pooja Satpute, for the Applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2023 P.C. : The matter to come up in due course. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ..Applicant $v/s$ . The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicant. Mr. Ashish Satpute for the Respondent No.2 Mrs. A.A.Takalkar, APP for the State. CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : $13 th $ APRIL, 2023. $P.C.$ $1.$ This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the aforesaid Applicant, who is facing trial in Special Case No.7 of 2021 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. The said case arises from Crime No. 10 of 2022, registered with Sangola Police Station for the offences under Section 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 8, 12 and 42 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act. $2.$ Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and learned APP for the State. I have perused PRASANNA P SALGAONKAR the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Digitally signed by PRASANNÄ‚ P SALGAONKAR Date: 2023.04.18 10:37:49 p +0530 Counsels for the respective parties. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by the mother-in-law of the victim. She has stated that on 04.01.2022 she had gone in search of the victim, who had gone to wash clothes near the rivulet (Odha). She saw the Applicant pulling the victim by her hand and heard the victim crying for help. She has stated that she had also heard the Applicant threatening her not to shout. When she intervened the Applicant left the victim and ran away from the spot. Based on the said report, initially crime was registered under Section 354, 506 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Statement of the victim was recorded. The victim claimed that the Applicant had touched her chest and private parts. On the basis of the allegations made by the victim, Section 4 and 8 also came to be added. It is to be noted that though the Applicant is charged for committing offences under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the statement of the victim does not prima facie indicate that the Applicant had committed penetrative sexual assault. In such circumstances, in my considered view, prima facie, the offence under Section 4 of not made out. The maximum sentence in respect of other offences is five years. The Applicant was arrested on 04.01.2022 and is presently in Judicial Custody. Considering the large pendency, the trial is not likely to commence in the near future. The application filed by the Applicant has been rejected mainly on the ground of antecedents of the Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant shall not visit Sangola District, Solapur, till the evidence of the victim is recorded. Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my considered view, this would be a fit case, to exercise discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the Applicant. Hence the application is allowed on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The Applicant who is facing trial in Special Case No.7 of 2021 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pandharpur arising out of Crime No. Crime No. 10 of 2022, registered with Sangola Police Station, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand Only) with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount; (ii) The Applicant shall not visit Sangola District till the evidence of the victim is recorded. (iii) The Applicant shall report to the nearest police station on the first Monday of every month till the date of framing of charge; (iv) The Applicant shall not interfere with the complainant or the other witnesses, or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (v) The Applicant shall keep the Special Court as well as the Investigating Officer informed of his permanent as well as temporary address, and his contact details, and/or change of residence or mobile details from time to time. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrudula Kiran Surve Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent. Ms. Chetna Karande a/w Parth S. i/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates for the Applicant. Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for the RespondentState. S.R. Phanse, for the intervenor. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 29th JUNE, 2018. P.C.: The learned counsel for the Applicant is directed to annex the copy of the charge sheet to the present Application. By an Order of today's date passed in Criminal Application No. 724 of 2018, the first informant Smt. Kusum Kulchandra has been directed to be added as Respondent No.2. Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks from today and an amended copy of the Application be served upon the concerned within the same stipulated period. 2 Stand over to 23rd July 2018. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrudula Kiran Surve ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Sonal Parab i/by Rajeev Sawant And Associates For Applicant A.A.Palkar, APP for state. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 30th July, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 31/07/2018 after ABA board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrudula Kiran Surve ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Smt.Sonal Parab i/by Rajeev Sawant And Associates For Applicant Smt.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 31st July, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant , Stand over to 02/08/2018, after ABA Board over. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrudula Kiran Surve ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mrs.Sonal Parab i/by Rajeev Sawant And Associates For Applicant Smt.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 2nd August, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 03/08/2018. After ABA Board Over. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrs. Mrudula Kiran Surve …. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents. Smt. Sonal Parab, Advocate I/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates for the Applicant. Smt. Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for the RespondentState. Mr. S. R.Phanse, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Ghosalkar, Police Inspector, Boriwali, present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 3rd August, 2018. P.C.: This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail in CR No. 636 of 2017 dated 25/10/2017 registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel appearing for the first informant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the record of investigation. Prosecution case in brief, is that, the coaccused Kiran Shankar Hidulkar, by making false representation to the informant that he will give her a job in the Reserve Bank of India, accepted approximately Rs.41,80,475/and thereafter neither gave job nor returned the said amount. During the course of investigation, the applicant came to be arrested on 25th October, 2017. After completion of investigation, the police have submitted the chargesheet. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that without entering into the merits of the matter, the applicant, with a view to prove her bona fide and without prejudice to her rights and contentions, is ready and willing to deposit the alleged defalcated amount of Rs.41,80,475/in the Registry of this Court within stipulated period. She further submitted that, as a matter of fact, an amount of Rs.3,25,000/ has already been transferred by the applicant by way of R.T.G.S. and the balance amount would be Rs.38,55,475/. She, on instructions, further submitted that, the father of the applicant namely Mr. Kiran Ganpat Surve has shown his willingness to deposit the said balance Rs.38,55,475/ in the Registry of this Court within stipulated period. She tendered across the Bar, an Affidavitcum-Undertaking of said Mr. Kiran Surve dated 1st August, 2018. The said affidavit is duly affirmed before a Notary Public and the signature of the affiant has been duly verified by Kiran Varma. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Undertakings mentioned in the said affidavit are accepted as Undertaking given to this Court. In the said Affidavit cum Undertaking, the said Mr. Kiran Surve has stated that, he will deposit a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on behalf of the applicant within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the present order and the balance amount will be deposited in two equal instalments of Rs.11,77,737/and last instalment will be paid on or before 2nd February, 2019. The said statements are accepted. It is made clear that, the period to deposit of the said balance amount shall not be extended hereinafter on any count. It is further made clear that if the said Mr. Kiran Surve commits default in making the said payment on or before stipulated dates, bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled, without further reference to this Court. In view of the above, the applicant can be released on bail. Hence, the following order. a) The applicant be released on bail in CR No. 636 of 2017 dated 25/10/2017 registered with Borivali 3/4 Police Station, Mumbai, on her furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount. b) After her release from jail, the Applicant shall attend Borivali Police Station every first Monday of the month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. c) The applicant shall attend all the dates before the Trial Court. Unless precluded for medical reasons. d) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or pressurize the prosecution witnesses. Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 20nd JULY 2016. P.C. : On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. S.N. Case No. CMIS DATE 2 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1583/2015 07/09/2016 3 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1748/2015 07/09/2016 4 BAIL APPLICATION NO.69/2016 07/09/2016 5 BAIL APPLICATION NO.291/2016 07/09/2016 6 BAIL APPLICATION NO.331/2016 07/09/2016 8 BAIL APPLICATION NO.750/2016 07/09/2016 9 BAIL APPLICATION NO.907/2016 07/09/2016 10 BAIL APPLICATION NO.916/2016 07/09/2016 11 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1084/2016 07/09/2016 12 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1085/2016 07/09/2016 13 BAIL APPLICATION NO.41/2016 07/09/2016 14 BAIL APPLICATION NO.316/2016 07/09/2016 15 BAIL APPLICATION NO.427/2016 07/09/2016 17 BAIL APPLICATION NO.841/2016 07/09/2016 18 BAIL APPLICATION NO.952/2016 07/09/2016 19 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1027/2016 07/09/2016 20 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1029/2016 07/09/2016 21 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1037/2016 07/09/2016 22 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1090/2016 07/09/2016 24 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1158/2016 07/09/2016 25 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1394/2016 07/09/2016 26 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.687/2016 07/09/2016 In the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief, if any, is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. (P. N. DESHMUKH, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1029 OF 2016 Kamlesh Parsram Balani Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Satyavrat Joshi Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. R.M. Gadhvi, A.P.P. for the Respondent State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATED : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2016. P.C. : 1 This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail in C.R. No.I/222/2015 dated 02.07.2015 registered with Vitthalwadi Police Station, District Thane, under sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(j), (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3, 4, 5(l) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2 The First Information Report is lodged by the mother of victim girl Smt. Ambica Mane, on 02.07.2015. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid First Information Report is lodged by the Police. During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim girl, who was at that relevant time about 16 years of age is recorded on 08.07.2015. That the statement of the victim girl, under section 164 of Cr.P.C. is also recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6th Court, Ulhasnagar, on 27.07.2015. The applicant was arrested on 5th July 2015. That after completion of the investigation, the police have submitted chargesheet on 14.09.2015. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. also perused the entire chargesheet annexed to the present application. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that a bare perusal of the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 161 so also under section 164 of Cr.P.C. would reveal that the alleged act has contemplated under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was a Consensual act. Prima facie I find substance in the said submission. It is to be noted here that the victim girl who was at the relevant time aged about 16 years, had stayed with the applicant at the place of the aunt of the applicant for about 18 to 20 days. It prima facie appears form the evidence available on record that the victim girl had attained the age of understanding on the date of registration of offence and at her free will had accompanied the applicant at various places. 4 In view of the above, the applicant has made out a case for his release of bail. 5 Hence the following order : (i) The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.I/222/2015 registered with Vitthalwadi Police Station, District Thane, on his furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/ with one or more local sureties in the like amount. (ii) After his release from the jail, the applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Vitthalwadi Police Station except for marking his presenty as is directed herein below. (iii) After his release from the jail, the applicant shall attend the Vitthalwadi Police Station once in three months on every 1st Monday of the said month between 11.00 a.m.to 1.00 p.m. (iv) Before his release from the jail, the applicant shall provide the documents pertaining to the address where he intends to reside after his release from jail. (v) Any two consecutive defaults in complying with the aforestated conditions, shall attract the provisions of cancellation of bail. (vi) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

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

Order - Status 9: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 11: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 14: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.