Vivek Salunke

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER --- CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 4th September, 2013 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, the following matters on the daily board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. --- Sr.Nos. Adjourned Date 06,09,10,17,20,36,37,38,40,41,42,44 16/09/2013 12,13,14,15,16,43 17/09/2013 19, 22, 23 08/10/2013 24,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,45 10/10/2013 25 24/09/2013 39 27/04/2013 46,47,48 19/09/2013 49, 50 20/09/2013 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1939 OF 2013 Ganesh Arjun Ghadage And Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunke Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2013. P. C.: . Heard learned Counsel Mr. Vivek Salunke for the Petitioners and Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for the State. Issue notice to Respondent No.2 returnable on 15 January 2014. (M.L.TAHALIYANI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders None for the Petitioner Mr. D. R. More APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JANUARY 24, 2014 P.C. : None present for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner shall furnish a complete spare to the Office within one week from today. Upon furnishing spare copy, Office to issue fresh notice to the Respondent. Notice returnable 4 weeks. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Rupesh Zade h/f. Mr. Pravin Dubade, advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JUNE 9, 2014 P.C.: 1 Stand over to 23/6/2014. Pendency of this Writ Petition shall not be construed as a stay to the trial in Special Case No. 25/2011 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati. Office to communicate this order to the concerned court. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Ganesh Arjun Ghadage and others .....Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunke for Petitioner Mr. Rupesh Zade for Respondent Mr. A. S. Shitole APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2014 PC : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioner herein had filed an application seeking relief that Special Case No. 25 of 2011 be tried along with R.C.C. No. 32 of 2012. The said application was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that the incident reported in R.C.C. No. 32 of 2012 is not arising out of the same incident and therefore, application seeking clubbing of the cases was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge is not yet framed. However, it appears from the charge-sheet that there are allegations against present petitioners under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and therefore, petitioner would have to be tried by the Special Court. In that case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused in R.C.C. No. 166 of 2011 should also be tried by the Special Court. However, as against them, there are no allegations under the provisions of the Special Act and therefore, they would have to be tried by the Court of Magistrate. In view of this, petition stands disposed of. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)