Tag: Criminal Others

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2099 OF 2022 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 738 OF 2021 Bhushan Suresh Lad .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent … Mr.Francis A. Caszo for the applicant in IA No.2099/22. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 6th JULY, 2022 P.C:- 1 Application came to be dismissed in default on 29/4/2022 by marking absence of the applicant and his counsel. 2 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the application. The learned counsel state that he did not attend the matter since he was suffering from High Blood Pressure and viral fever. No certificate to that effect has been placed on record nor is the statement on affidavit. However, since the reasons stated is coming from an Advocate, the same is believed. 3 Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The Application is restored to file. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 4: Megha 7_ia_1763_2023.doc MEGHA S PARAB Digitally signed by MEGHA S PARAB Date: 2023.05.04 16:41:31 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1763 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1340 OF 2023 Ramesh Jamdade ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ... Mr. Sadip Pareikh with Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav for the Applicant/Intervenor Mr. Ritesh Thobde with Mr. Sagar Tambe for the Applicant in ABA/1340/2023. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 4th MAY, 2023. P. C. :- Not on board. Upon being mentioned, taken on board. This is an application for intervention fled by the First Informant. Considering the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Learned counsel for the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application to implead the Intervenor as party Respondent and furnish copy of the anticipatory bail application to the learned counsel for the Intervenor on or before the next date of hearing. The application stands disposed of. (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 4th April, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 25/04/2017.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 CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 13th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 04/07/2017. 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 CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 10th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned 28/07/2017. 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 CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Ashok M Saraogi For Applicant Mr.M.G.,Patil, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 14th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 19/07/2017, on Suppl. Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Ashok M Saraogi For Applicant M.G.Patil, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand Over to 28/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda and anr. …Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Anand Mishra i/b. Mr. A. M. Sarogi for the applicant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 21 JULY, 2017 P.C. : This is an application for modification of order passed by the Sessions Court. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court vide ABA No. 1114 of 2016. The said application was allowed by confirming interim order dated 24th June, 2016 passed by the said Court in that application on 10th August, 2016. As per the said interim order dated 24th June 2016, the applicant was directed to be released on P.R. of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only.) and like amount of one surety. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is not in position to make arrangement for solvent surety since the Sessions Court has directed the applicant to be released on P.R. of Rs.20,000/. The applicant prefers the present applicant for modification of order 24th June, 2016 passed by the Sessions Court. Considering the circumstances and the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant, order dated 24th June, 2016 can be modified. Hence, I pass following order; :: ORDER :: (i) Order dated 24 June,2016 passed by the Sessions Court in ABA No.1114 of 2016 which is confirmed by order dated 10th August, 2016 is modified and the applicant is directed to be released on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only.) with one or more sureties in the like amount. (ii) Application stands disposed of. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPW) NO. 274 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3464 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None for Applicant Ms. Saloni M. Ghule, I/by Sanjiv Sawant for R. No. 1 Mr. Deepak Thakare, APP for State CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 22nd APRIL, 2016 P.C. None for the applicant. 2] This is an application for early hearing of Writ Petition No. 3464/2013 preferred by the original petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitionerhusband on instructions submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 26.3.2013 her client is regularly paying the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ to the applicantwife. 3] In view of the same, I find that there is no urgency in hearing the petition expeditiously. The application is disposed off with liberty to the applicantwife to file fresh application for appropriate reliefs, if the petitionerhusband commits any breach of orders dated 13.9.2013 and 17.6.2014. 4] The application is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6038 OF 2021 Limbaji Bhimrao Thore Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent None present for Petitioner. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP, for State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI AND PRAKASH D.NAIK, JJ. DATE : 16th January 2023 PC : Petitioner has been issued strict warning by Jail Authority for returning one day late to Jail, when he was released on emergency parole leave. Perusal of record indicates that Competent Authority has not committed any error while issuing strict warning to the Petitioner for his returning late to Jail Authority by one day. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A.S.GADKARI, J.) MST

Order - Status 4: Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.01.25 17:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2021 Raju Paulas Pakhare … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner Ms.A.S. Pai, Mr.J.P. Yagnik, Ms.S.D. Shinde, Mr.K.V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutors for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2021 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 4 th February, 2021. 3. In addition to service of notice through Court, the Petitioner shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery or by e-mail/fax on the Respondents and shall file affidavit of service with tangible proof before the returnable date**.** 4. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent – State. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appearances of the Advocates as per Board dated 04/02/2021. … CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 04TH FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C:- Matters from Sr. Nos.68 to 135 of the Board stands discharged. Following dates are assigned to the said matters: Sr. Nos. Due Date 68 to 75 09-02-2021 76 to 78, 81 and 83 to 84 10-02-2021 85 to 99 and 115 11-02-2021 100 to 105 15-02-2021 107 to 114 16-02-2021 117 to 130 17-02-2021 131 to 133 and 135 18-02-2021 79 08/02/2021 Ad-interim interim reliefs, if any, to continue till then. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.02.16 19:51:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2021 Raju Paulas Pakhare … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner Mr.Deepak Thakare, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: FEBRUARY 16, 2021 JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner had applied for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole for 45 days in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and the amendment in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. However, his application was rejected vide order dated 19th May, 2020 passed by Respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Jail, Yerwada Open District Prison, on the ground that the petitioner, in the past, during his stay in the jail, had availed of parole / fulough leave twice, however, reported to the prison late. The petitioner is a convict undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has been in jail since last 10 years. 3. Mr.Vagal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon the judgments of this Court in Kalyan s/o. Bansidharrao Renge vs. The State of Maharashtra & another (Criminal Writ Petition No.ASDB-LDVC-265 of 2020) and Uzair @ Hujer s/o. Rafiq Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Criminal Writ Petition No.2989 of 2020) to contend that the ground stated in the impugned order was wholly unsustainable. It was, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposed the petition for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole. It was submitted that the petitioner had reported late on both the occasions when he was released on parole/furlough. Now the situation in the Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune, has changed substantially. It was submitted that the number of inmates in the said prison are less than the capacity. It was submitted that there is no crowd in the jail and that the authorities have sufficient infrastructure now to immediately take care of any inmate or staff, who may suffer from Covid-19 virus. 5. We have perused the record forwarded by the respondents to the office of the Public Prosecutor of this Court. The petitioner was released twice in the past on parole/furlough, however, he had reported to the prison late. The facts and figures stated therein indicate that in pursuance of release of number of inmates due to Covid-19 pandemic, now the situation in the Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune, has changed substantially. There can be no doubt about the fact that the petitioner is justified in relying upon the aforesaid judgments of this Court to claim that the reason assigned in the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. At the same time, the fact situation on ground as on today, cannot be ignored and, therefore, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the learned APP that the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole needs to be considered afresh. 7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole within one week from today. Upon filing such an application, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, however, within two weeks from the date of such filing of the application in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and keeping in view the factors like the extent of spread of Covid-19 virus and conditions in jail. 8. Rule is partly made absolute to the above extent. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 7: CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.37 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2183 OF 2013 Noor Jahan Abdul Rauf Marne ..Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... .... Mr. Vivekanand N. Upadhye, for the Applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent – State. CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2014 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant on this application for relaxation of condition of bail. It is prayed that the applicant may be allowed to furnish the cash security instead of personal surety for the total amount of Rs.20,000/. Considering the prayer and considering the case against the applicant as mentioned in the order passed by this Court while granting bail, provisionally for the period of three weeks from today the applicant is given liberty to give cash security of Rs.20,000/ and the applicant shall complete the process of submitting the surety and thereafter acceptance of the same within this period of three weeks as the liberty of cash bail is only for the period of three weeks from today. Trial Court to take appropriate action and accept the cash bail only for the period of three weeks from today and thereafter deal with the applicant in accordance with law. With these directions, present application is disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.48 OF 2015 Pritam Shivshankar Yadav $V/s$ The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant .... Respondent None for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J. DATE : $6^{TH}$ FEBRUARY, 2015. $P.C.$ : In the light of the reliefs prayed for by the Applicant in this application and also in the light of the fact that Civil Writ Petition No.9244 of 2014 is pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court, this application be placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court. This application, therefore, be removed from our board. [DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] $1/1$ Dixit

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL / CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 20 NOVEMBER 2015 P.C . :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary and Daily Boards stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 122, 128, 130, 131, 140, 153 11.12.2015 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156 11.12.2015 114, 115, 116, 117, 132, 155 14.12.2015 134, 138 15.12.2015 101, 160, 161, 162 23.12.2015 118, 133, 136, 137, 157, 158, 159 04.01.2016 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 14 18.01.2016 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 19.01.2016 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 20.01.2016 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 21.01.2016 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 22.01.2016 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 25.01.2016 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 27.01.2016 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2016 P. C. : On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary and Daily Boards stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Supplementary Board :­ 923, 925, 926, 927, 928. 12/02/16 (On Supplementary Board) Daily Board :­ 1, 3, 4. 08/02/16 Daily Board :­ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. 04/03/16 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. 11/03/16 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102. 18/03/16 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130. 01/04/16 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150. 08/04/16 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2015 Pritam Shivshankar Yadav … Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent … None for the Applicant. Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE :20 AUGUST, 2016 P.C. : The Family Court at Bandra, is directed to dispose of Case No. E-406/2010 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of 1 year from today. This is if the said case has not already been disposed of by now. By the aforesaid direction, the present application is disposed of. Ms. Tidke the learned Additional Public Prosecutor undertakes to communicate this order to the Principle Judge, Family Court, at Bandra within a period of 2 weeks from today. 3. All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1252 OF 2012 Mandakini Mohan Gangawane Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Ms. Meera Barge, Advocate i/b. C.P. Sengaonkar, for the Appellant. Ms. J.S. Lohokare, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J. DATE : 19th JULY, 2022 P.C. : Learned A.P.P. seeks time to take instructions as regards the death of the original accused. List the matter tomorrow, 20th July, 2022. (M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1252 OF 2012 Mandakini Mohan Gangawane Applicant versus State of Maharashtra Respondent •• Ms. Meera Barge i/b. C. P. Sengonkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J. DATE : : 20th JULY, 2022 P.C. : On the last occasion, learned counsel for the Respondent filed an application stating therein that the original accused Mohan Gangawane passed away on 16/05/2020. Learned APP sought short time to take instructions in this regard. She has now filed xerox copy of death certificate of Respondent/accused. Appeal stands abated. Interim application stands disposed of. (M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.) MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Digitally signed by MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Date: 2022.07.20 16:42:28 +0530

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and anr. .. Appellants vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ---------------- Mr. R.S. Deshpande a/w Mr. Vijay S. Thakur for the Appellants. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State. Mr. Vinayak Narale, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath Division, Thane City present. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2021 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. He seeks leave to amend so as to implead the complainant as a party Respondent. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The ofence is registered against the Appellants in respect of C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane for the ofences punishable under Section 354-D of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(W) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the said Act' for short) on the basis of FIR given by the complainant-Ms. Apeksha Dalvi. 14.APEAL.574-21.doc Ms. Apeksha Dalvi is a President of RPI (Women Wing) of Thane District. The Appellant No.1 is the President of RPI Maharashtra State and the Appellant No.2 is the President of RPI Shahpur Taluka. It is the case of the Appellant No.1 that he being a Vice President of RPI Maharashtra appointed one lady as a President of Shahpur Taluka RPI, without consulting the complainant. The complainant was therefore annoyed and hence the submission of Appellant that a false case is registered against them. It is alleged that the Appellant No.1 has posted some messages in a whatsapp group of RPI Thane District which are derogatory in nature and insulting. Even the Appellant No.2 has posted some messages on the whatsapp group which afects the dignity and honour of the complainant and hence the ofence is registered. The trial Court rejected the application for bail. It is contended by learned counsel for the Applicants that the basic ingredients of ofence under Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act are not made out. The Appellant No.2-Jayvant Bhagawan Thorat belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The trial Court therefore held that so far as the ofence under the said Act alleged against Jayvant is concerned, the same may not be attracted in his case. As against the Appellant No.1-Farooq Sattar Dalvi, the trial Court held that prima facie Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act would be attracted. As against both the Appellants, trial Court observed that Section 354(D) of IPC will be applicable. 14.APEAL.574-21.doc It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an ofence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The ofence under Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation must be with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that the whatsapp messages posted were not with the object of humiliating any member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. According to him, the Appellants as well as the complainant happen to be members are of the RPI Political party. Assuming the language used in the posts on whatsapp is derogatory, it cannot be said to have been posted with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. It is just that the complainant was annoyed with the Appellants taking some decisions without consulting her which led to the exchange of the messages. The intent therefore is absent. Learned APP for the State submitted that the Appellants have not co-operated with the investigation and the bar of Section 18 of the said Act will be attracted in the present case. He submitted that for the reasons mentioned by the Appellate Court, this is not a ft case for grant of anticipatory bail. 3 Of 4 Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that they are willing to co-operate with the investigation but as there is no protection in their favour, they apprehend that they will be arrested forthwith. That was the only reason according to them that they did not present themselves before the Investigating Ofcer. Prima facie I fnd substance in the contention of the Appellants that the ofence under Section 3(1)(R) is not made out. Issue notice to the complainant, returnable on 24.08.2021. In addition to the Court's notice, the Investigating Ofcer to inform the complainant about the next date of hearing. The Appellants in my opinion deserve to be granted interim protection. In the event the Appellants are arrested in connection with C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane, they shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. The Appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or contact, threaten or infuence the complainant in any manner. The Appellants in the meantime to co-operate with the investigation and present themselves before the Investigating Ofcer on 14th, 16th and 18th August, 2021 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. List the matter on 24.08.2021. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 6: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Mr.Vijay S. Thakur, for the Appellants. Mr.N.B. Patil, APP for State. Smt.Apeksha Dalvi - Respondent No.2 present. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2021 P.C. The matter pertains to the assignment of Hon'ble Anuja Prabhudessai, J. On 12/08/2021, the matter was listed before this Court in view of the office order. The complainant appeared and mentioned the matter. The matter be placed before appropriate Court on 25/08/2021. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: Megha 11_apeal _574_2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. Vijay S. Thakur with Mr. R.S. Deshpande for the Appellants. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2021. P.C.:- It is stated that matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Registry to verify and place it before appropriate Court. Stand over to 07/09/2021. Interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) MEGHA Digitally signed by Date: 2021.09.01 14:29:07 S PARAB

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ....APPELLANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mrs.Prabha Badadare i/b Vijay Thakur for Appellant Ms. P.N.Dabholkar, APP for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 7th September, 2021 P.C. : The Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Court. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 FAROOQ SATTAR DALVI AND ANOTHER )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT Mr.R.S.Deshpande a/w. Mr.Vijay Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J. DATE : 28th APRIL 2022 P.C. : 1 Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the appellant. Vide order dated 12th August 2021 this Court had granted interim protection which is continued from time to time. Let the interim protection so granted be continued till the next date. 2 Stand over to 16th June 2022. (V. G. BISHT, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi & Anr. ….Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 2022 P.C. : The learned counsel for the appellants states that he will supply a spare copy within a period of two days from today. Once the spare copy is supplied, issue fresh notice to the respondent No.2, returnable on 8.2.2023. Interim order granted vide order dated 12.8.2021 to continue till then. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE 10:38:05 +0530

Order - Status 17: 1 of 1 16-apeal-574-21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 __________ __________ Farooq Sattar Dalvi & Anr. ..Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Thakur for Appellants. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 8 FEBRUARY 2023 PC : Await service on the Respondent No.2. Stand over to 29/03/2023. Interim order granted earlier to continue till the next date. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Gokhale

Order - Status 19: 27.Apeal.574.2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and another Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Adv.R.S.Deshpande with Vijay Thakur, Advocates for Appellant. Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12th June 2023 Office note indicates that notice was issued to Respondent no.2 on 16th January 2023. Service report is awaited. It is noticed that this appeal is pending in this Court since long. Hence concerned Police Station is directed to take steps to intimate/serve Respondent no.2. Stand over to 5th July 2023. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, to continue till then. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST PC :

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. Respondents Mr. R.S. Deshpande i/by Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : th 5 JULY, 2023. PER COURT : Learned APP on instructions submit that the intimation about the hearing of this Appeal has been given to Respondent No.2. However, she has requested for time as she is undergoing some treatment. This Appeal is pending in this Court since 2021. By way of last chance the Appeal is adjourned till 12th July, 2023. Stand over to 12th July, 2023. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Digitally signed by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date: 2023.07.07 10:53:40 +0530

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. R.S. Deshpande a/w Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for Appellant. …. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Saili Dhuru, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.s CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12 th JULY, 2023. P.C.:- Learned APP has tendered report from the concerned Police Station indicate that the intimation be given to the complainant and request is made by the complainant for providing legal aid. Report is taken on record. Learned Ms. Saili Dhuru is appointed to represent for Respondent No.2. Stand over to 19th July, 2023. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R. S. Deshpande a/w Mr.Vijay S. Thakur Advocate for Appellants. Ms. Saili Dhuru Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. …. …. ETHAPE DNYANESHWAR ASHOK Digitally signed by ETHAPE ASHOK Date: 2023.07.20 17:32:17 +0530 CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 19th JULY, 2023. P.C.:- This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act"). The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 10th July 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan rejecting the application for anticipatory bail preferred by Appellants in connection with C.R. No. I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane City on 20th June 2021. The FIR was registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. D.A.Ethape 11-APEAL-574-2021.doc The case of the prosecution is that, the first informant is the office bearer of political party and belongs to Scheduled Caste. She is also member of Thane District Rural Whats APP group. The accused are also member of the same political party and whats-app group. The accused posted messages on those whats-app groups which was derogatory nature. Appellant No.2 belongs to scheduled caste. Hence, offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act cannot be attracted against him. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail has observed that, Section 3(1)(w) is not attracted in this case. However, the application was rejected on that ground that Section 3(1)(r) is attracted qua the appellant No.1. The offence under Section 354(D) of IPC is bailable. Learned Advocate for Appellant submitted that, neither Section 354(D) of IPC nor the provision of Atrocities Act invoked against the appellants are attracted in this case. All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the said Act indicate that the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation must be with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The whats-app messages posted were not with the object of humiliating any member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Appellants as well as the complainant happen to be members of same political party. Assuming the language used in the posts on whats-app is derogatory, it cannot be said to have been posted with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. The complainant was annoyed with the Appellants taking some decisions without consulting her which led to exchange of messages. The intent therefore is absent. Learned APP and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the nature of message posted by the accused was derogatory and sent with a view to insult and humiliate the complainant as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Prima facie offences are made out and the Appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. It appears that, the alleged message was on account of animosity between Appellants and the complainant. Appellants as well as complainant are members of the same party and same whats-app group. In any case, the offences under the Atrocities Act cannot be applied against Appellant No.2 as he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Section 354(D) of the IPC relates to offence of stalking. Prima facie it is debatable whether the said provision can be applied in the present case. Section 3(1)(r) of Atrocities Act, provides that, whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Case of the complainant is that, message was sent on whats-app group. The record does not indicate that, the alleged message was forwarded to intentionally insult or intimidate the complainant because she was belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In these circumstances, bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act would not be an impediment to grant relief sought in this Appeal. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2021 is allowed. (ii) Interim order dated 12th August 2021 is confirmed. (iii) Impugned Order dated 10th July 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1101 of 2021 is set aside. (iv) In the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane, City, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount. (v) Appeal stands disposed off. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)