All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.280 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.187 OF 2016 Nehal Ahmed Khan ...Applicant Versus Shamim Ahmed Siddiqui & Anr. ...Respondents None for the Applicant. Mr. K.V.Shafruddin, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs. P.P.Shinde , A.P.P for the Respondent-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 14th JUNE, 2016 P.C. : 1 None for the Applicant. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the postdated cheque given by the Applicant is dated 1.7.2016. He, therefore, requests that the aforesaid application be adjourned to 11.7.2016 to ensure that the same is hounoured. Hence, stand over to 11.7.2016. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur $V/s.$ The Deputy Collector & Ors. ...Petitioner ....Respondent Mr. Nitin Padmakar Deshpande – Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State. Uttam R. Patil – DRO Pune. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. D. S. DESHMUKH, REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL-II) V. A. SATHE, DY. REGISTRAR, OSD AT CPC DATE : $11^{text{th}}$ DECEMBER, 2021 $overline{P}C$ .: Remove from board. $1.$ Place the matter before Regular Court. $2.$ (V. A. SATHE) (D. S. DESHMUKH) (S. M. MODAK, J.) O.S.D. at CPC Registrar (Judl.-II) (Judge)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur ...Petitioner V/s. The Deputy Collector Resettlement Pune District Pune and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Pawar, A.G.P. for the Respondent / State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 09 JUNE 2022 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 30 June 2022. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for all the Respondents. (SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur PETITIONER V/S The Deputy Collector And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 30th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: UMESH SHRINIWAS MALANI Digitally signed by UMESH SHRINIWAS MALANI Date: 2022.08.20 13:31:24 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 *** *** Ankush Bapurao Thakur ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) Pune & Ors. ...Respondents None for the petitioner. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & KISHORE C. SANT, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2022. P. C. : Matter is moved before this Court by way of a praceipe. In view of urgency, order is passed on praceipe itself. None for the petitioner. List the petition as per its own turn. (KISHORE C. SANT, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

Order - Status 12: SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2022.08.26 16:53:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Collector (Resettlement) Pune, & Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Rachana Harpale i/by Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, B Panel Counsel (AGP), for the Respondent State. *** CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & KISHORE C. SANT, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2022. P. C. : Matter is moved before this Court by way of a praceipe. In view of urgency, order is passed on praceipe itself. Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents, making the same returnable on 06th October, 2022. Learned AGP waives notice for Respondent – State. Learned Counsel for Petitioner is permitted to serve the private Respondents, by way of any legally permissible mode of service, apart from Court service and to place on record service affidavit before next date. (KISHORE C. SANT, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Collector Resettlement Pune District Pune And Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Kanchan Phatak i/b Mr. Nitin Deshpande, for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, 'B' Panel Counsel for the Respondents-State. ---- CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA, AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 18th JANUARY 2023 P.C. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the Respondent/State. Taken up for final disposal by consent. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the Respondents-State to delete the entries of 'reservation for project affected persons' from the other rights column of 7/12 extracts of the Petitioner's land admeasuring 2 Hectares and 72 Ares from Gat No. 112, situated at Village Takali Bhima, Taluka Daund, District – Pune. It is the case of the Petitioner that the subject matter land is falling in the benefited zone and as such it is kept under reservation SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2023.01.19 12:19:47 +0530 vide M. E. No. 505, for the allotment of project affected persons of Bhama-Askhed Irrigation project. It is further case of the Petitioner that because of such endorsement, he cannot deal with his land and Government has also not taken steps in last 24 years for acquisition and allotment of this land to the project affected persons. As a result, there is indefinite fetter/restriction on the Petitioner's right to enjoy subject matter land. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to various earlier orders passed by this Court viz. Order dated 17.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 5207 of 2013, Order dt. 17.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 2821 of 2018, Order dt. 14.08.2019 passed in batch of Writ Petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 5763 of 2017, Order dt. 17.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 1578/2020 1567, 1474, 1475 and 1476 all of 2020, Order dt.27.10.2020 passed in group of Writ Petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 5077 of 2020, Order dt. 05.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.2508 of 2021, Order dt. 11.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 8629 of 2018, Order dt. 07.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1601 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 716 of 2021, Order dt. 15.11.2021 passed in group of Writ Petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2021 and latest Order dt. 02.03.2022 passed in group of Writ Petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 5507 of 2021. Perusal of all these orders show that this Court has taken consistent view that private lands of the citizens like Petitioner cannot be kept under continuous and indefinite fetter, without initiating any action for allotment to project affected persons. If the Respondent-State wants to allot any of these lands to project affected persons, necessary steps must be taken and completed in time bound manner, otherwise the subject matter land must be released from such endorsements on 7/12 extract. Learned AGP for the Respondent-State could not distinguish facts of the present matter from the facts of the above said cases. We are therefore, of the view that this matter is covered by aforesaid Judgments and Orders taking consistent view. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order : (i) The State Government is directed to complete the process of allotting the Petitioner's land which is declared as part of the benefited zone, for allotment to the project affected persons, if required, and the said process shall be completed within six months from today, without fail. (ii) It is further directed that if the Petitioner's land is not allotted as stated above, the mutation entries effected in its 7/12 extracts about reservation for project affected persons, be deleted without further reference to the Court within two weeks from the date of expiry of six months. It is directed that no further extension of time would be granted for the same. (iii) It is further directed that if the entire process of allotment of Petitioner's land is not over within a period of six months from today as stated above, the Petitioner whose land has been placed under the benefited zone, would be at liberty to deal with his said land in the manner he desires and the State Government shall not initiate any acquisition proceedings in respect of the Petitioner's land which is subject matter of this petition, after expiry of six months. (iv) It is further made clear that the Government Resolution dated 18th January, 2022 and 11th February, 2022 shall be read with this order, so far as its application to the Petitioner's land is concerned. (v) The Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. (vi) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. [M.M.SATHAYE, J.] [R.D.DHANUKA, J.]

Order - Status 4: Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. …Respondents Mr. Samir A. Vaidya, for the Petitioner. Mrs. A. S. Pai, PP for the State/Respondent no.1. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 29th JULY, 2021 (Through V.C.) PC:- Heard Mr. Vaidya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vaidya submits that after fling of this petition the petitioner has been served with an externment order. Mr. Vaidya seeks leave to amend the petition so as to challenge the externment order as well. Leave to amend. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week and amended copy of the petition be served on the respondents. List on 17th August, 2021. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 17th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Deep Samant i/b. Mr. Samir Vaidya, for the Petitioner Smt. A.S. Pai, PP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2021 P.C.: . At the request of Mr. Samant holding for Mr. Samir Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner, list on 3rd September, 2021 through video conference. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2021.08.24 18:55:34 +0530

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 3rd September, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/09/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Mr.Samir Vaidya for the Petitioner. Ms.A.S.Pai, GP for Respondent No.1. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 6 October 2021. P.C. : The learned counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the externment order dated 28 June 2021. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor raised an objection that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of statutory appeal. The learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that two externment orders back to back have been issued and there is serious violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner of free movement. There is the sequetor of every externment order. A statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order is provided. However, considering the arguments made by the Petitioner, in the facts of this case, we are inclined to accept the prayer of the Petitioner for early disposal of his appeal. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing that if the Petitioner files an appeal within a period of three working days from today, the appeal will be decided by the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks thereafter on is own merits. We make it clear that since we have disposed of the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, we have not gone into the merits of the matter. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, 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 4: hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 574 OF 2011 Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale and Ors... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Abhaykumar Apte i/by Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar for the appellants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED : JULY 18, 2011 P.C. Heard. Admit. Notice of admission waived on behalf of State. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.782 OF 2011 1.Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale & Anr. .. Appellants v/s. The State of Maharashtra (Through Haweli Police Station, Pune) .. Respondent Mr.Daulat G.Khamkar, for the Appellants. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State. --- CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 17th NOVEMBER, 2014. P.C.: This appeal be added to the final hearing board from 1st December,2014 at its appropriate place on the board. ( G.S. KULKARNI, J.) ( P. V. HARDAS, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.782 OF 2011 (By Accused against conviction) 1. Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale Age 27 years, Occu:Rickshaw Driver } R/at Vikasnagar,College Road, } Vadgaon Bk, Pune 2.Sunil Gulabrao Yadav Age 24 years, Ococu: Rickshaw Driver } R/at Gosavi Vasti,Vadgaon Bk, Pune (Now in Yerwada Central Jail, Pune) } Appellants vs The State of Maharashtra } (Thr.Haweli Police Station, Pune) Respondents Mr.D.G.Khamkar for Appellants Mrs.S.D.Shinde APP for State --- CORAM: P.V.HARDAS & G.S.KULKARNI,JJ DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2014 ---- JUDGMENT : (Per G.S.Kulkarni, J) The appellants-original accused nos. 1 and 2 who stand convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and who are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine suffer R.I. for 1 year by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.337 of 2008, by this appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. Facts as necessary for decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus : PW 16-Satish Shankarrao Patil, Police Inspector, attached to the Haveli Police Station was on duty on 17th January 2008. PI -Satish was informed by Head Constable Modak on telephone that there was a murder opposite Dnyanganga Society, Vadgaon-Budruk, Near Khandoba Mandir in the field of one Balasaheb Jadhav. PI- Satish therefore, went to the spot and noticed a dead body which was identified by the brother of the deceased who was present at the spot to be of Vijay Suryavanshi. An inquest panchanama at Exhibit 97 was recorded in the presence of panchas. The dead body was thereafter sent for post mortem. A spot panchanama at Exhibit 71 was recorded in the presence of the panchas. Samples of simple mud, blood stained mud, hairs and a piece of tile were seized from the spot. After the post mortem, clothes of the deceased were seized as per panchanama at Exhibit 98. PW 16-Satish Shankarrao Patil thereafter undertook the investigation. Statements of PW 3-Kantiram alias Chandrakant Vithoba Jadhav at Exhibit 99, that of PW 4-Prakash Gulab Pawar at Exhibit 100 came to be recorded. On 18.1.2008 statements of other witnesses were recorded. Statement of one Ananta Subhash Shigwan came to be recorded by PI-Satish who disclosed names of the accused to have committed the crime. This witness expired before he could be examined. On 19.1.2008 statement of PW 13-Ashok Baburao Shewale who was an eye witness came to be recorded. The seized articles were sent for Chemical Analysis along with constable Surdikar under cover of letter dated 21.1.2008 which is at Exhibit 102. On 21.1.2008 in pursuance of the report of PSI Bajirao Patil producing the accused which is at Exhibit 103, the accused came to be arrested vide arrest panchanama at Exhibit 104 to 108. On 23.1.2008 accused no.1 was interrogated and thereafter on 26.1.2008 statement of accused no.1 was recorded in presence of the panchas. Accused no.1 agreed to show the place where the chopper being one of the articles in crime, was hidden. A statement to this effect was recorded at Exhibit 79. Accordingly, PW 16- PI. Satish along with panchas went towards Sinhagad College at the spot where the chopper was kept underneath a shrub by accused no.1 which came to be seized vide panchanama at Exhibit 80. On 26.1.2008 accused no.2 agreed to produce the sickle. A statement to that effect was recorded to that which is at Exhibit 85. Accordingly, the sickle was recovered in presence of panchas from the backside of Sinhagad College and the 3. Dr Ajay Aniruddha Taware - PW 15 Medical Officer attached to the Sasoon Hospital, Pune on 17.1.2008 conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Vijay. Dr.Ajay noticed the following seven external injuries: "Chop wound over left forehead vertically oblique 7x 2 cm x bone deep with fracture. Multiple intermingled chop wounds from vertically left fronto parieto occipital region upto angle of left mandible, 4 cm below left ear, antero posteriorly from nose and left angle of mouth upto left occipital region, in area of 23 x 15 cm x bone muscle brain deep involving left ear, left eye which are sharply cut,margins clean cut. Incised wound over left shoulder, superiorly horizontal 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep. Chop wound over right ring finger over first digit with partial traumatic amputation of finger. Chop wound of over left index finger, vertical, dorsally 4 x 2 cm x bone deep with fracture of underlying bones. Chop wound in the web of left little and ring finger 4 x 2 cm x bone deep with fracture of underlying bones. Abrasion over right side of back, 7 cm, away from midline and 25 cm, below shoulder, 6 x 2 cm." Dr.Ajay Taware recorded that the injuries were ante mortem and were fresh. He noticed haemotoma under scalp of left side which was red in colour, displaced comminuated fractures of left fronto parietal occipital temporal bones, left facial bones and bones of left side of base of skull infiltration of blood was also noticed at the fracture site. PW 15- Dr.Ajay noticed laceration of meninges on left side and brain matter was also lacerated and found in pieces. Dr.Ajay Taware opined that death was due to chop injuries over the head and that above external injuries with corresponding internal injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW 16 - PI Satish Shankarrao Patil thereafter recorded statements of some more witnesses as also statement of some witness under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded on 12.2.2008. After receipt of the post mortem notes on 3.3.2008 and Chemical Analyser's reports which are at Exhibits 113 to 119, a final report came to be filed in the Court of J.M.F.C.at Pune. The offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge vide Exhibit 22 framed charge against the accused under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused examined 16 witnesses. PW 11-Nitin Madukar Darwade and PW 13-Ashok Baburao Shewale were eye-witnesses. PW 13-Ashok Baburao Shewale was declared to be hostile. The main plank of the prosecution' case is the evidence of the sole eye-witness PW 11-Nitin Madhukar Darwade and the medical evidence. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforestated. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it appropriate to first refer to the prosecution witnesses. PW 1-Narayan Bhimrao Suryawanshi younger brother of the deceased Vijay, deposed that deceased Vijay was residing with his wife and minor kids adjacent to his house. He deposed that the deceased was working as a driver with PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav. That in the morning of 16.1.2008 he had gone to attend his usual work and returned at about 4.30 p.m. On his return he made inquiry about his deceased brother Vijay with his wife who informed him that at about 4 p.m. PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav had come to their house and had taken Vijay along with him. He deposed that thereafter he made inquiry in the night and was informed that deceased Vijay had not returned home. PW 1- Narayan deposed that on the next day at about 9 a.m. he had gone to Jadhav Nagar in search of a plumber and noticed that in front of Lahan Khandoba temple there was a mob of persons and on approaching the spot, he found that his brother Vijay was lying on the ground and was having injuries on the head, hands and face and blood was oozing from the injuries. PW 1-Narayan Survawanshi immediately informed his other brother Ramesh on phone about the incident. Police had come on the spot after sometime. PW 1- Narayan lodged a report about the incident with the police at Exhibit 44. PW1-Narayan Survawanshi identified clothes of the deceased as seized by the police and other articles of the deceased. He deposed that he was knowing the accused as they are belonging to the same village. In the cross examination, PW 1-Narayan that PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav owns land adjacent to the Lahan Khandoba Mandir. He admitted that there was one hand cart selling eatables adjacent to Khandoba Temple. He admitted that there was a approach road to Dnyanganga society from the side of Khandoba temple. PW 1-Narayan admitted that there was some dispute between one Pappu and PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav and this had happened three days prior to the incident when deceased Vijay was present. PW1-Narayan denied that there were offences registered against deceased Vijay. PW 1-Narayan admitted that deceased Vijay was working as a driver with PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav since about 4 to 5 years and that PW-1 knew Kantiram since his childhood. PW-1 admitted that PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav is the owner of an agricultural land at Vadgaon-Budruk. PW 1-Narayan admitted that relations between deceased Vijay and accused were good. PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav deposed that he owned a Scorpio vehicle and deceased Vijay was appointed as a driver. PW 3-Kantiram deposed that deceased Vijay was a resident of the same village. PW 3- Kantiram Jadhav deposed that on the day of the incident deceased Vijay had come for duty at 7 a.m. and had drove the vehicle up to 4 p.m. when PW.3 had accompanied him. PW.3 deposed that at about 7 to 7.30 p.m. deceased Vijay handed over keys of the vehicle to him when he was in his field. PW 3 deposed that thereafter he had personally driven the vehicle from his field to his home. PW 3-Kantiram deposed that he was not aware as to where the deceased went after handing over the keys. PW 3-Kantiram deposed that on the next day when he went to his field, he saw the body of the deceased Vijay in a pool of blood near Khandoba Mandir in his field and that he was having injuries on his person and hence he suspected that Vijay was murdered by somebody. In his cross-examination PW.3 admitted that deceased Vijay was his driver for last 4 to 5 years and also used to help him in agricultural operations. PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav denied to know Pappu Mate Rickshawalla. PW 3- Kantiram admitted that he knew Gulab Pawar who was operating a hand cart near the Khandoba Temple. PW 3 admitted that Vijay was not consuming liquor. PW 3- Kantiram Jadhav also admitted that deceased Vijay had left his field saying that he was not feeling well . PW.4 Prakash Gulab Pawar operated a handcart near the Khandoba temple selling edible items which was near the place of the incident. PW 4- Prakash deposed to know the deceased and that he was a driver of PW 3- Kantiram. He deposed that on the day of the incident his handcart was near the temple from 8.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. He deposed to have seen deceased Vijay along with PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav sitting in the Scorpio jeep in the field of PW 3. He deposed that after sometime PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav had himself taken the jeep and deceased Vijay went away after sometime. At this stage PW 4- Prakash was declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, PW.4 denied that he had seen some boys to have gone along with the deceased Vijay towards the canal for consuming liquor. He denied to have stated names of the boys Sonya and Ravya to the police. PW 4-Prakash denied his statement as given to the police. PW 4 Prakash admitted that he had seen accused no.2 Sunil and admitted that had stated the name of accused no.2 who was seen along with the deceased. PW 4-Prakash Pawar denied that he had identified accused no.1 Devendra and accused no.3 Ravi Gaddakhulu along with accused no.2 Sunil on the day of the incident and that they had accompanied the deceased Vijay. PW 5 - Ravindra Chinchkar was serving as a security guard with one Netra Security Agency at the relevant time. PW 5 deposed that he was a security guard in Damodar Nagar Sankul Society and that on 16.1.2008 he was on night duty. He deposed that at 8 p.m. he was going on feet to attend duty and that there was no electricity on the road. He deposed that he saw three -four persons running towards Tukai Nagar and some of them were shouting "run run". He deposed that he attended duty for whole of the night. PW 5 deposed that in the morning when he was returning home, he found people gathered near Khandoba Mandir which is opposite Dnyanganga society. He noticed dead body of deceased Vijay lying in a pool of blood near Khandoba mandir.In the cross examination nothing of relevance is elicited. PW 11- Nitin Darwade is examined by the prosecution as an eyewitness. PW 11 deposed that he was residing in Tukai Nagar since childhood and knew the accused since then. He deposed that he also knew the deceased from childhood. PW 11 deposed that he last met deceased Vijay on the date of the incident at about 8.15 to 8.30 p.m. near the field of PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav. PW 3 deposed that one Ashok Shewale was with him at that time. He deposed that they had chitchatting and while chitchatting all the accused came there and they had altercations with the deceased Vijay. Ashok Shewale left the place. PW 11 deposed that he stopped behind the sugarcane crop of PW 3-Kantiram and saw appellant no.1 assaulting the deceased with a chopper. That appellant no.1 assaulted deceased Vijay with a chopper on the back side on the neck. He saw accused no.2 Sunil assaulting the deceased with a sickle and remaining three accused assaulted him with stones. PW 11 deposed that deceased Vijay fell down. He deposed that he thereafter left for his house through the sugarcane crop. He deposed that police had interrogated him and recorded his statement and also he had narrated the incident before the Magistrate. In his cross-examination PW 11 admitted that he had gone to the place of the incident in the morning and saw the police and public were present at the spot. He admitted that he had stated to the police that he had seen the incident of assault. He admitted that the police did not interrogate him for one month after the incident. He admitted that there was a liquor shop near to the place of incident. He also admitted that he consumed liquor. In his cross-examination, on behalf of appellant no.2 PW 11 admitted that the walking distance of 10 minutes between Vadgaon-Budruk and Tukainagar. PW 11 admitted that the field of PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav was adjacent to the road which was having traffic. PW 3 denied that he was not under the influence of liquor on the day of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had not noticed accused persons assaulting the deceased. In his cross-examination, on behalf of accused no.5, PW 11 admitted his statement as made before the Learned Magistrate. He admitted that when he reached the spot the deceased Vijay and Ashok Shewale were together. He denied that he was at home on the day of the incident between 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. PW 13-Ashok Shewale was being examined as an eye-witness. However, in his examination-in-chief, he denied to know the accused persons or meeting the deceased on the day of the incident and denied to know anything about the incident. He was therefore, declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. In cross-examination PW 13 denied that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate and denied that he had stated before the Magistrate and that he had met the deceased Vijay in the field of PW 3-Kantiram Jadhav. PW 13 denied to have stated before the Magistrate that accused persons had come and had chit-chat with him and that there was any altercation between the accused persons and deceased Vijay. He denied his statement as recorded by the police. PW 2-Dhananjay Gholap is the panch witness and was examined in the context of spot panchanama. PW 6-Suresh Tekwade is also panch witness examined by the prosecution in the context of seizure of clothes of the accused vide panchanama at Exhibit 77. PW 8 Sandip Balasram is shop owner from whose shop article of crime namely chopper was purchased by accused no.1. PW 9 and PW 12 are examined as panch witnesses in regard to seizure of mobile phone vide panchanama at Exhibit 83. PW 10-Sandip Charwad is the panch witness in the context of recovery of weapon vide panchanama at Exhibit 85 and 86. PW 16-Satish Shankarrao Patil is the Investigation Officer who had undertaken investigation. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the prosecution which has principally relied on the sole testimony of PW.11 has failed to prove that the appellants are guilty of committing murder of deceased Vijay. He submits that credibility cannot be attributed to the evidence of the sole eye-witness PW 11-Nitin Darwade as his evidence is rendered wholly unreliable. It is submitted that PW.11 has stated that the incident took place at about 8.to 8.15 pm and that he has seen the same hiding behind the sugar cane crop from the field of PW.3 Kantiram , he submits that there is no evidence on the illumination more particularly the scene of the offence was near to the field and the time of the offence is at about 8 to 8.15 pm. Learned counsel has submitted that statement of PW 11-Nitin Darwade under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded after one month from the date of the incident and on this count as well his evidence cannot be relied upon to record a finding of guilt against the accused. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even otherwise there is no independent corroboration to the evidence of PW 11-Nitin Darwade. The other submission as urged before us on behalf of the appellants is that the articles of crime namely chopper and sickle alleged to be recovered at the behest of the accused were sealed before being sent for Chemical Analyst. It is urged that these weapons are also not shown to the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination so as to connect these weapons with the nature of the injuries caused to the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants therefore has strenuously urged that the nature of the evidence as appearing on record cannot be considered to be of a category of being either wholly reliable or wholly unreliable. He submits that if such is the position then eminently the finding of guilt of the accused could not have been recorded by the trial Court. He has urged that hence the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt by the application of well settled principles under the Criminal jurisprudence. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Nemichand S/o Bakaram Patel Versus State of Maharashtra reported in 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 752 to contend that the sole testimony of PW 11-Nitin Darwade cannot be relied upon. On behalf of the prosecution, the learned APP has supported the findings as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned APP submits that the testimony of PW 11-Nitin Darwade who is the sole eye witness has corroboration from the findings in the post mortem report of PW 15-Dr.Ajay Taware as also supported by his testimony. Learned APP submitted that the weapons were seized at the behest of the accused. He submits that even if the statement of PW 11-Nitin Darwade under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. had been belated recorded after one month, that does not in any manner affect the credibility of the evidence of PW 11. The learned APP has therefore, urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed by confirming the conviction as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. On a close scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence as brought on record on behalf of the prosecution, it is quite clear that the backbone of the case of the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.11-Nitin Madhukar Darwade who has been examined as eye witness. We are of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.11 cannot be held to be reliable so as to convict the appellants of the offence for which they are charged. This is for the reason that in the first instance, P.W.11 claims to have witnessed the incident which had happened at about 8 to 8.15 p.m. on 16.1.2008. P.W.11 claims to have witnessed the incident from behind the sugarcane crop to state that that the accused had participated in the murder the deceased with the help of chopper and sickle. There is no evidence as regard illumination when the distance between the sugarcane crop and the place of the incident is about 80 feet as seen from the map at page 123 of the paper book. Further what is significant is that the place of the incident is in the front of the Khandoba temple which if seen from the sugarcane field can be said to be behind the Khandoba temple as the spot would stand eclipsed from some position of the field. There is no identification of the place where PW-11 was standing to witness the incident. These are some grave uncertainties in the evidence of PW.11 making the testimony conjectural, hazy or inconclusive. What is most significant is that P.W.11 has come forward to give this account of the incident after about one month from the date of the incident i.e. on 16.2.2008 when his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. This itself, in our opinion, shakes the very credibility of the testimony of P.W.11. The other infirmity which we find is that the Medical Officer namely P.W.15-Dr.Ajay Taware who has performed the postmortem examination, has not given the description of the weapons which could have been used by the appellants in the crime, by which injuries appeared on the body of the deceased could be caused. This was imperative so as to have a definite finding of P.W.15 - Medical Officer as to whether the injuries in question as sustained by the deceased were inflicted using the weapons which are seized by the police. Further there is no evidence to show that when these weapons were seized at the behest of the accused, they were sealed in the presence of panchas which is of an implicit necessity in connecting the weapons to the offence as committed by the accused. In view of these serious infirmities, we are not in a position to persuade ourselves to sustain the finding of conviction as recorded by the Trial Court. We may observe that these infirmities do not in any manner conclusively establish the guilt of the accused and that guilt can be said to be established beyond reasonable doubt. In the context of our aforesaid observations, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of " State of Orissa V. Mr.Brahmananda Nanda, (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2488) ". In this decision the Supreme Court was dealing with the prosecution case which entirely depended on the evidence of a person claiming to be eye witness and this witness did not disclose the name of the assailant for a day and half after the incident and the explanation offered for non-disclosure was unbelievable. The Supreme Court has held that such non-disclosure was a serious infirmity which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of the witness. Learned Counsel for the appellants has appropriately relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of " Nemichand s/o. Bakaram Patle & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999(3) Mh.L.J. 752) " to submit that in a case of lapse on the part of the witness to inform the police with utmost expedition the same would seriously affect the credibility of such witness. The Division Bench in considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of " Deendayal Vs. Rajkumar @ Raju and others, (AIR 1999 SC 537) " has observed as under:- "9. The facts almost identical to the present case were found in the case in Deendayal Vs. Rajkumar @ Raju and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 537. In that case, after seeing the incident, witnesses quietly went back to home. They had not accompanied the deceased to the hospital nor had taken any trouble of going and informing the police about what had happened and, therefore, the Apex Court finding their version improbable held that there evidence cannot be relied upon. In the case in hand also, P.W.1 Narendra though had witnessed the incident had either informed the villages who had assembled at the spot on that day at 4 P.M. nor took trouble of going and informing the police or Police Patil of the village about the same. So, in our view, the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has full application to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, we find that no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of P.W.1 Narendra." (emphasis supplied) We may observe that though it is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of single eye witness, however, the evidence of such eye witness should be of such a nature and quality that such evidence is unimpeachable to prove the guilt of the accused. In this regard, we may refer to the ever guiding observations of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of " Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2622) " which read thus:- " 19. Now let us sum up the whole case in the light of the evidence we have found to be of worth. We must observe that even if a witness is not reliable, he need not be false and even if the police have trumped up one witness or two or has embroidered the story to give a credible look to their case that cannot defeat justice if there is clear and unimpeachable evidence making out the guilt of the accused. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Informing ourselves of these important principles we analyse the evidence found good by us. In our view, there is only one eye witness, P.W.5, Vilas. Even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given on sterling testimony of a competent, honest man, although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. We are persuaded that the P.W.5 is a witness for truth but in view of the circumstances that he is interested we would still want corroboration in this case to reassure ourselves. And that we have in this case." (emphasis supplied) In view of our aforesaid observations, we pass the following order:- ORDER Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and they are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by them, be refunded to them. Since the appellants are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5309 OF 2021 Ranshul Chandrakant Patil. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5314 OF 2021 Mukesh Sukrya Bhandari. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5320 OF 2021 Prakash Vitthal Mahale … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5325 OF 2021 Arvind Dhanya Tadavi. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5333 OF 2021 Bacchibai Narayan Khadake. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5563 OF 2021 Vikas Vitthal Ghurup. … V/s. Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR Digitally signed by SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR Date: 2022.08.03 16:21:51 +0530 AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5572 OF 2021 Vijay Balasaheb Nanware. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5954 OF 2021 Santosh Rajaram Wankhede. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5959 OF 2021 Shrihari Rajlingam Guntuka. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5981 OF 2021 Steve Alias Lisbun John Miranda. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6026 OF 2021 Bhagwanji Dayaram Joshi. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6049 OF 2021 Vikas Madan Devkate. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6509 OF 2021 Kisan Barku Gangad. V/s. … Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6511 OF 2021 Ganesh Bhausaheb Pawar. V/s. … Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6600 OF 2021 Kailas Suresh Waghmare. V/s. … Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … AND Respondent. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6610 OF 2021 Kisan Budha Nirgude. V/s. … Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. Through Jail. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent- State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 29 July 2022. P.C. : In these petitions, the Petitioners are seeking to be released on emergency (Covid-19) parole. The Petitioners have sought this relief in view of Rule 19(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 as amended. By Government Resolution dated 4 May 2022, the policy of being released on emergency (Covid-19) parole is discontinued and those who have been released earlier have been directed to return back to the respective prison. In light thereof, the relief sought for by the Petitioners cannot be granted. Writ petitions are rejected. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Respondent-State No.1. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHIVKUMAR DIGE, JJ. DATE : 21st June 2023. P.C. : Issue notice to Respondent No.2, returnable on 2nd August 2023. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners is directed to supply spare copies of the Petition in the Registry within a period of two weeks from today. Stand over to 2nd August 2023. Till the next date, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b). [ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ] [ A.S. GADKARI, J. ]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharahstra & Anr. … Respondents NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2023.08.07 11:07:36 +0530 Mr.Sarwadnya Kadtane a/w Mr.Yash Naik, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.S. Hulke, APP for Respondent-State. Mr.D.M. Thosar, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND SHIVKUMAR DIGE, JJ. DATE : 02nd AUGUST 2023 P.C. : At the request of learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, stand over to 24th August 2023. Ad-interim relief if any, granted earlier, to continue till next date. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 8: Amol Diliprao Nawale Digitally signed by Amol Diliprao Nawale Date: 2023.09.04 17:50:38 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State. Mr. D. M. Thosar i/b. Thosar & Associates for the Respondent No.2 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 31 st AUGUST, 2023 P.C.: Counsel for the Petitioners assures that the brother of the Petitioner is party to the D.V. Act proceeding and shall appear before the Magistrate Court at Belapur in D. V. Act Proceeding. Since the statement is made, on instructions, the same is accepted. It appears that earlier there was a settlement between the parties i.e., Respondent-Complainant and her husband. However, the settlement terms have not materialized. As we have heard respective counsel for sometime, we deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter to next week, as a last chance, so as to enable the brother of the Petitioner, who happened to be husband of the Respondent-Complainant to make an offer of one time alimony. Stand over to 7th September, 2023. Ad-interim relief if any, granted earlier, to continue till next date. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane a/w Kanchan Phatak, for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. D. M. Thosar i/by Thosar & Associates, for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2023 P.C. If copy is not supplied to the counsel for the petitioners of reply within one week with an acknowledgment to be produced on record within said time, the defence of the respondent shall be struck of. Stand over to 5th October, 2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till then, only to the extent of the present petitioners. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2023.09.08 12:27:37 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL BGP. 1 of 1

Order - Status 12: BDP-SPS-TAC BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2023.10.09 12:12:07 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and Anr. ….Petitioners V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents --- Mr. Yash Naik i/b Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. ---- CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & N. R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 05, 2023 P.C.:- Stand over to 26.10.2023. Interim order to continue till the next date. ( N. R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 14: 31-WP-1995-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and another Petitioners WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and another … Petitioners Versus • Mr. Sarwdnya Kadtane alongwith Mr. Akash Kotecha for the Petitioners. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the State. Ms. Rupali Thosar instructed by Thosar and Associates for Respondent No.2. …...... CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 26 OCTOBER 2023 P.C. :- Both the parties assure that they shall be appearing before the Mediator Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP on 31 October 2023 at 2.30 p.m. The statement is accepted. List the Petition on 9 November 2023. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 1

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and anr. … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioner. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State. Ms. Rupali Thosar i/b Thosar and Associates for Respondent No. 2. …...... …...... CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 9 NOVEMBER 2023 P.C. :- As the mediation is in progress, stand over to 25 January 2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya S. Kadtane (through V.C.) for the Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. A.P.I. Mr. Balasaheb Bhimraj Shinde, Rable Police Station present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 5 th AUGUST 2024. P.C.:- Learned Advocate for the Petitioners on instructions submitted that, the process of mediation has failed and prayed that the Petition may be heard on merits. 1.1) At his request, stand over to 26th August 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till then. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao And Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioners. Mr. A.I. Satpute, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. None for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 29 th AUGUST, 2024. P.C.:- Despite service, none appears for the Respondent No.2. Stand over to 24th September 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till then. (DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) NILESH SHIVGAN Digitally signed NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.09.02 19:18:32 +0530

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Yash Naik a/w Adv. Sarwadnya Kadtane and Mr. Shakti Kolekar for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. P.S.I. Mr. Balaji Pawane, Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai, present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : th 24 September 2024. P.C. : At the request of learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, stand over to 1st October 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till next date. ( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) RAJESH VASANT Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.09.30 10:24:49 +0530

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. PSI Mr. Balaji Pawane, Rabale Police Station. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 3 rd October 2024. P.C. : Stand over to 24 th October 2024. 1.1) To be listed under the caption 'For Admission'. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till next date. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.10.08 10:48:40 +0530

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane, for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar, i/b Thosar & Advocates, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 24th OCTOBER 2024. P.C.:- This Writ Petition is filed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing C.R.No. 9 of 2023 lodged at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 4th January 2023 under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. is lodged by the Respondent No.2 herein. The Petitioners are the younger brothers of her husband Gopal @ Anil. It is stated in her F.I.R. that she was married with Gopal on 21st April 2017. Her father had given her gold ornaments weighing 2.5 tola and Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash to her husband's father. On further demands he has given 1.5 told of gold. He also gave household articles in the marriage. After the marriage, she started residing with her in-laws at village Ligdal, Taluka Amadpur, Post Telgaon, District Latur. The F.I.R. mentions that her mother-in-law did not allow her to use any article given by her father. Her husband had told her that she had no right to use those articles. She was not allowed to use Air Cooler. It is alleged that her mother-in-law did not give her sufficient food and used to make her to do all household work. It is further mentioned that Gopal's parents and both the Petitioners as well as Gopal himself suggested that the Informant and Gopal should stay at Udgir, Latur. Accordingly, she and Gopal started residing at Udgir, Latur. It is further alleged that Gopal used to ill-treat her and used to beat her. He was addicted to different vices. She became pregnant, but even then her mother-in-law and husband Gopal assaulted her. There is a general statement that because of the harassment of the family members of the husband, she had to undergo cesarean. Even at that time, Gopal did not spend any money. The F.I.R. thereafter mentions different instances particularly in respect of Gopal and his mother. There are only two references of both the Petitioners. At one instance, it is alleged that Gopal and the Petitioner No.2 Vikram had gone to their house at Udgir and had broken the iron gate and abused to her and her mother. She was also beaten up by them and then they had left. The other allegations are that her two children were sick, but then Gopal did not look after them. She called the Petitioner No.1 to inform him about this. At that time, he told her that he had no concern with informant and her children. These are the only two allegations against both the Petitioners. Otherwise the entire F.I.R. is about allegations against her husband including the allegations of his extramarital affair. We have heard Mr. Kadtane, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Satpute, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Thosar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. With consent of the parties, the matter is decided finally at this stage. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that from the narration in the F.I.R. it is clear that the allegations against the Petitioners did not attract the ingredients of Section 498-A and other offences under which the F.I.R. is lodged. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand relied on the F.I.R. which contains the specific instances attracting the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Petitioners along with his husband and mother-in-law harassed and ill-treated her. Learned APP produced investigation papers before us. Apart from the F.I.R., there is statement of the Informant's father, wherein he has mentioned the instances in which that particulars that gate was broken. However allegations against the Petitioners were only two references of Petitioner No.2 Vikram was that he was accompanying Gopal. It was alleged that for some time Informant's son was taken away and he was brought back within short time. Apart from that, there is absolutely no material against the present Petitioners. We have considered the F.I.R. and the statement of Informant's father. As we have observed, there is hardly any material against these two Petitioners. There are only general and omnibus allegations. There are no specific instances against the present Petitioners which were attracting the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the F.I.R. mentions that at the instance of the Informant's in-laws, she and her husband Gopal had started residing separately at Udgir. It clearly mentions that the Petitioners were not even residing with the Informant and her husband Gopal. 4/5 The allegations against the present Petitioners are vague. Considering this discussion, the Petitioners have made out a case for quashing of the F.I.R. and the further proceedings. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The F.I.R. bearing C.R.No. 9 of 2023 lodged at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 4th January 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the present Petitioners only. (ii) The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)