All Civil Miscellaneous Application

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1750 OF 2006 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. Mr. Ramesh Vaja Rabari & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the applicants-State. None for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & D. B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : 12TH APRIL, 2007. P.C.: - Heard Mr. Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the applicants. As a last chance, time to complete the investigation is extended by three weeks from today i.e. till 3/5/2007. Criminal application is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [D. B. BHOSALE, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4246 OF 2005 Pandurang Narayan Wakase. Applicant. Versus. The State of Maharashtra. Respondent. Shri V.V.Purwant for the Applicant. Shri R.Y.Mirza, A.P.P.for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED : 22nd July, 2005. P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the Applicant to kill the victim and in fact none of the injuries are on the vital parts of the body of the victim. The learned A.P.P. pointed out the material against the Applicant. The F.I.R. discloses that when the victim was at the place of incident, the Applicant went back to his house and brought a sickle and assaulted the victim. The medical report indicates that three fingers of the victim were chopped of and in fact there was traumatic amputation of three fingers. There is a stab wound on the right eye. It is obvious that the attempt made by the Applicant is deliberate as according to the prosecution story he went back to his house and brought the sickle. Considering the gravity of the offence it is difficult to take a different view than the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the Application is rejected. The trial is expedited and the same should be concluded by treating it as a High Court expedited trial. Judge.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2440 OF 2008 Imran Mohd.Aziz Shaikh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.V.T.Tulpule senior counsel for Applicant Ms.A.T.Jhaveri APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008 P.C. Heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.228 of 2007 of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur. The said case is mainly under Section 376 of IPC. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that Ahetashyam Rafique Ahmed Momin has been granted bail by this Court and the case of the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused. This statement is not controverted by the prosecution, hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The applicant-Imran Mohd.Aziz Shaikh to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant to report to Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur once in a month till conclusion of the trial. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4846 OF 2005 ...................................................... Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders or directions and orders Registrar's orders ...................................................... Law Global for the Applicant. Ms S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Khemka, Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 05, 2005. P.C.: 1. The Respondent No.2 appearing in person mentioned this matter at 02.00 p.m. for adjournment. The prayer made by the Respondent No.2 appearing in person was opposed by the Advocate for the Applicant on the ground that the Applicant desires to obtain ad-interim relief. None appears for the Applicant when the Application is called out. Dismissed for default. JUDGE

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4797 OF 2005 Sanjay Sitaram Khemka .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4846 OF 2005 Sampatraj Adania .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.S.S.Khemka, applicant in person in CA No.4797/05 and respondent no.2 in person in CA No.4846/05. Mr.Subhash Jha i/b Law Global for respondent no.3 in CA No.4797/05 and for the applicant. in CA No.4846/05. Mr.R.Y.Mirza A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 3RD AUGUST, 2006 P.C.: . Heard Sanjay Khemka in person and Mr.Subhash Jha, learned counsel for respondent-Sampatraj Adania and Mr.R.Y.Mirza learned A.P.P. for the State. Both the applications challenge one and the same order dated 15.7.2005 passed on the application Nos.162/N/2005 and 127/N/2005 filed under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am informed that application bearing No.121/N/2005 field by Mr.Sanjay Khemka on 3.3.2005 under section 451 was also pending at the relevant time. I heard the applicant - Sanjay Khemka in both the applications in person and Mr.Jha for the respondent-Sampatraj Adania. Both, the applicant-Khemka and Mr.Jha have fairly stated that I need not record the reasons for setting aside the order dated 15.7.2005 passed on the application nos.162/N/2005 and 127/N/2005 and the parties would be satisfied by the order that I proposed to pass. Hence the following order: (a) The order dated 15.7.2005 passed below application nos.127/N/2005 and 162/N/2005 by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri is quashed and set aside. Both the applications stand restored to file. (b) The learned Magistrate shall hear and decide, application nos.127/N/2005 and 162/N/2005 with the application of Sanjay Khemka bearing No.121/N/2005 afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The learned Magistrate may also hear application/s, if any, under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alongwith the aforesaid 2 applications. The learned Magistrate shall give hearing to all the concerned parties while passing the order on the aforesaid applications for return of property under section 451 of the Code and decide all the applications on merits in accordance with law. . With these directions the applications are disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 5: SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.77 OF 2011 IN PETITION NO.A-768 OF 2003 ...... ...... Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi ...Applicant Versus Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Respondent Mr.H.S.S.Murthy i/b Ms.P.M.Bhansali for Applicant. Respondent present in-person. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- JUNE 24, 2011. P.C. Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board. List this matter on 8th July, 2011 as scheduled as per CMIS Programme. The applicant apprehends that the respondent may create third party rights or transfer the matrimonial house. The respondent is present before us. He states that he has no such instruction. That assurance is accepted. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2011 Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi ...Applicant vs. Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Respondent Mr.H.S.S. Murthy with Ms.P.M. Bhansali for the Applicant. Mr.D.S. Shah with Mr.V.G. Parekh for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. AUGUST 29, 2011 P.C :- 1 Rule, returnable in four weeks. 2 The respondent-husband is directed to deposit arrears of maintenance as per the impugned judgment in the Family Court before the next date. 3 It is needless to mention that the applicant-wife will have a liberty to withdraw the maintenance that will be deposited by the husband. 4 S.O. for two weeks. There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d) till the next date. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 9: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2011 Renu alias Rita Jayesh Joshi ...Applicant vs. Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Respondent Ms.P.M. Bhansal for the Applicant None for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C :- It appears that Mr.Dinesh Shah, Advocate has already filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. Hence, payment of bhatta charges is not necessary. Objection raised by the office to that effect is dispensed with. Civil Application to come up for hearing on 26th September, 2011. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 12: acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2011 Renu@Rita Jayesh Joshi ..Applicant. Vs. Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ..Respondent. Ms. P.M. Bhansali, for the Applicant.. Mr. D.S. Shah, for the Respondent. ---- CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2011. P.C.: Ms. Bhansali, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has not complied with the directions issued by this court vide order dated 29.8.2011. She submits that she has instructions to take out an appropriate proceedings against the respondent. In view thereof this civil application to come up for hearing after vacation. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) ( D.B. BHOSALE, J.) cam.143-2010

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION M. NO. 143 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mrs.P.M.Bhansali, for the applicant. Mr.Dinesh B Shah with V.G.Parekh, for the respondent. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE AND K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE : 08/11/2011 PC: Learned counsel for the applicantwife submits that the applicant-wife intends to file contempt proceedings against the respondent-husband for noncomplying with the directions issued by this court vide order dated 29.8.2011 in this week. Stand over for four weeks. (K.K.TATED,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.77 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or J Court's or Judge's orders. applicant Mr.Dinesh Shah a/w Mr.V.G.Parekh for the Ms.P.M.Bhansali for the respondent CORAM DATE : D.B.BHOSALE & K.K.TATED, JJ. : 07/12/2011 PC: Civil Civil Application to come up for hearing afte hearing after two weeks. (K.K.TATED, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2011 IN FAMLY COURT APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2011 WITH CAM/299/2011 in FCA/77/2011 WITH CAM/300/2011 IN FCA/77/2011 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Ms. P.M.Bhansali, for the applicant. Mr D.S.Shah, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 22/12/2011 PC: By consent, stand over to 6.2.2012. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the respondenthusband, on instructions, makes a statement that the respondent does not intent to create third party rights or transfer the matrimonial house. His statement is accepted. (K.K.TATED,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2011 in FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.77 OF 2011 Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi ..Petitioner versus Jayesh Chotalal Joshi ..Respondent Ms.P.M.Bhansali for Applicant Mr.D.S.Shah for Respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & N.M.JAMDAR, JJ 6th February, 2012 P.C. List Civil Application No.299 of 2011 along with this Application on 24.2.2012. Office to ensure that both matters are notified together on the next date. (N.M.JAMDAR,J). (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION CAM NO.143 OF 2011 in FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.77 OF 2011 Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi ...Applicant Vs Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Respondent ......... with CIVIL APPLICATION CAM NO.299 OF 2011 in FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.77 OF 2011 Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Applicant Vs Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi ...Respondent ......... with CIVIL APPLICATION CAM NO.36 OF 2012 in FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.77 OF 2011 Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Applicant Vs Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi ...Respondent ......... Applicant in C.A No.299/2011 & C.A No.36/2012 present in person & is respondent in C.A.No. 143/2011. Ms.P.M.Bhansali advocate for applicant in C.A. No.143/2011 & respondent in C.A No.299/2011 & C.A. No.36/2012. CORAM :A.M.KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR JJ. DATED :24th FEBRUARY, 2012. P.C.: None appears for the applicant when the matter is called out. Respondent is present in person. Dismissed for non-prosecution. Civil Application No. 299 of 2011 to be heard along with Family Court Appeal No.77 of 2011. The relief claimed in this application is already worked out in view of the order passed on companion Civil Application No.299 of 2011. This application is disposed of accordingly. Later On, advocate for the applicant mentioned the matter pointing out that at the relevant time, she was held up in other Court. Further, she desires to point out relevant facts. As the matter has been mentioned immediately after the above order is passed, we recall the said order and place this application for hearing on 28th February 2012. The respondent is Mlns 3 CAM/14311 present in Court and has taken notice of the adjourned date. (N.M.JAMDAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2012 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2011: Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi ...Applicant V/s. Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Respondent Ms. P.M. Bhansali for the Applicant in Civil Application and the Appellant in Family Court Appeal Mr. Dinesh Shah for the Respondent Both parties present CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2012 (In Chambers) P.C .:- This application is filed by the wife. The first relief is to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and decree of divorce. Since the appeal is already admitted, we have no hesitation in staying the implementation of judgment and decree dated 24th February, 2011 passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, in Petition No. A-768 of 2003 to the extent of decree of divorce only. As regards prayer clause (b), it is common ground that the husband has not challenged the decree passed by the Family Court, which obliges him to pay maintenance amount to the applicant and minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- per month, respectively. That order was passed by the Family Court on 24th February, 2011. Even after lapse of one year, the husband has failed to comply with the said direction. In that view of the matter, the wife was left with no option but to file contempt proceedings against the husband, which contempt petition has been filed before this Court, being Civil Contempt Petition No. 39 of 2011. The respondent-husband is present before us in Chambers along with his advocate. He submits that he has no means to pay the amount. According to him, he is presently unemployed, and has no source of income, and is fully dependent on his friends and relatives. The excuse given by the respondent-husband does not commend to us. Even the trial Court has not accepted his version that he has no source of livelihood. On that finding being recorded, the trial Court would not have directed him to pay maintenance amount to the applicant and the minor daughter. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the respondent-husband has not challenged that part of the order passed by the Family Court dated 24th February, 2011, is obliged to comply with the same. We give one opportunity to the respondent to pay all the arrears of maintenance amount to the applicant from January, 2011 till date. That be paid within four weeks from today, failing which, the Court may consider of striking off the defence of the respondent. That would be in addition to the contempt action already instituted and pending against the respondent. As regards prayer clause (c), it is for enhancement of maintenance amount to the respondent and the minor daughter, as well as to provide for maintenance amount to the other unmarried daughter, who is staying along with the applicant-wife. For the time being, we will not consider the prayer for enhancement of maintenance amount. 4 14311 The only question that we are inclined to examine in this application is: Whether the unmarried daughter has been justly denied of maintenance amount by the Family Court? The only reason stated by the Family Court is that she has become major. The fact that the daughter has become major, by itself, can be no ground to deny maintenance to unmarried daughter. There is no finding recorded by the Family Court that the major daughter has her own source of income. In absence of such finding, we fail to understand as to how the Family Court has not provided for maintenance amount to the major daughter staying with the wife. In our opinion, to that extent, the view taken by the Family Court is manifestly wrong, and is also subject-matter of challenge in the appeal filed by the wife. As a result, during the pendency of the appeal, we direct the respondent-husband to provide for maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the second daughter, Archi, who has been denied maintenance amount by the Family Court. In other words, the respondent shall pay maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) to the applicant and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each to the two daughters, i.e., aggregate amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand) per month. That amount shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court on or before the 5th of every English calendar month. On failure to pay that amount for two consecutive months, the applicant would be free to move the Court for appropriate direction against the respondent. At the same time, with the second default committed by the respondent towards maintenance amount to be paid in terms of this order, the Court may consider of striking off the defence of the respondent in the pending appeal. As regards prayer clause (d), there is no dispute that the applicant, along with two daughters, is staying in the premises in question, which is her matrimonial house. As a result, the respondent cannot create third party right, title or interest therein, which may prejudice the interest of the applicant or the two daughters staying with her. Accordingly, interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) is granted, which will operate during he pendency of the appeal against the respondent. Civil Application No. 143 of 2011 is, accordingly, disposed of. At this stage, the counsel for the respondent submits that, at least, the hearing of the appeal be expedited. We see no reason to accede to this request, moreso, until the respondent pays the outstanding maintenance amount, and continues to pay the maintenance amount in terms of this order to the applicant from time to time regularly, without any default. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 2011: Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Applicant V/s. Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi ...Respondent Mr. Dinesh Shah for the Applicant Ms. P.M. Bhansali for the Respondent P.C .:- This application is by the husband. In the appeal filed by the wife, which has already been admitted, the husband, by way of interim relief, prays for direction and order of the Court to sell Flat No. A-502, Raj Crystal, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 091, and the sale-proceeds be disbursed between the husband and wife, respectively, for acquiring separate premises. This application is resisted by the wife. It is not possible to accede to the request made by the husband, and moreso, until the appeal filed by the wife challenging the decree of divorce is finally disposed of. The request of the applicant for disposal of the property, which is the only property in which the wife and two unmarried daughters - one of whom is minor - are residing, cannot be acceded to. This application is, therefore, disposed of, with liberty to the husband to renew the request at the time of final hearing of the appeal. We place on record the statement made by the wife, who is present in chambers before us, that the minor daughter has now attained majority. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2012: Jayesh Chhotalal Joshi ...Applicant V/s. Renu @ Rita Jayesh Joshi Respondent Mr. Dinesh Shah for the Applicant Ms. P.M. Bhansali for the Respondent P.C .:- This application is filed by the husband, praying that the applications be heard along with the main matter. For the reasons recorded in the concerned applications, this application is disposed of. N.M. JAMDAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, 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 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 744 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra Applicant vs. Prakash Uttareshwar Nanavare Respondent (orig. Accused) Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP, for the Applicant-State. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 1 st April, 2013. P.C. Admit. Action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, I direct that the Court before which the respondent is brought shall forthwith enlarge him on appropriate bail. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)