All Cases

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Sachin Patil i/b Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Jain for respondent no.1B. Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : Colleague of Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for the petitioner, prays for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Patil is ill. S.O. for a week. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 31: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's Court's or Judge's orders orders Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde a/w Mr.A.B.Vagyani i/b Mr.Manoj A.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Mishra, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1A to 1B. Mr.Bipin Joshi, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 & 4. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 12th February, 2014 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.D.Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1A to 1B and Mr.Bipin Joshi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. Since the matters are to be disposed of finally at the state of admission as per order dated 27/04/2011, call for record and proceedings of the case telephonically. The petitioner will file copies of i) plaint ii) report of the court Commissioner and iii) evidence led by the plaintiffs in all the suits and serve the copies in advance on the other side. List the petitions for admission on 26/02/2014 at 3.00 p.m. The parties are put to notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, the petitions may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 GULAMBHAI VALIBHAI RAJE )...PETITIONER V/s. SURESH KALYAJI BHAGAT (since deceased) ) JAYA SURESH BHAGAT AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Ashish P. Pawar i/b. Mr.Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay R. Dubey, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1A & 1B. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 2 nd APRIL, 2014. P.C. : 1 Stand over by Two Weeks, to enable the petitioner to file compilation, pursuant to the order dated 27th April 2011. The counsel for Respondents nos.1A & 1B states that Respondent no.1B died on 23rd March 2014. Petitioner to take the suitable steps. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.)

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 .... .... Gulambhai Valibhai Raje ..Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyani Bhagat (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. And Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ashish Pawar, Advocate i/b Manoj Patil for Petitioner. Mr. R.D. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1B. Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 24 MARCH 2015 P.C.: The learned Counsel for petitioner states that Respondent No.1.B. has expired and seeks time to take necessary steps in that regard. At his request, S.O. to 7 April 2015. [N.M. JAMDAR, J.] S.S.DESHPANDE 1 / 1

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai, Son of Valibhai Raje. ] … Petitioner Versus Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (Since Deceased) ] through legal heirs ] 1A Smt. Jaya Suresh Bhagat and Ors. ] … Respondent Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner present in person. Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. V. R. Dubey for Respondent Nos.1A and Ab. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JULY 07, 2015 P. C. : Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner, appears in person and states that his Advocate is unwell and therefore unable to attend the Court. The record reveals that this matter has been taken up for consideration no less than 54 times. There is an interim order, which affects the Respondents. Nevertheless, at the request of Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, stand over to 15/07/2015. It is made clear that in case, the Counsel for the Petitioner is not present and does not proceed with the matter on the next occasion, the appropriate orders shall be made, including orders for dismissal of this petition for nonprosecution. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2012 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 122 OF 2010 Anil Narayan Joshi & Ors. ..Applicants versus The Secretary, Urban Development Department & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Shriram Kulkarni for Applicants. Mr. A. B. Vagyani - Assistant Government Pleader for State - Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Mandar Limaye for Respondent No. 6. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 18 July 2012 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State - respondent nos. 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. Civil application is moved by the applicants seeking direction to the respondents Corporation as well as the State Government to take appropriate action against illegal construction which has come up on Survey No. 285 at Kolshet, Patilpada Thane and Survey Nos. 139 and 271 at Mauje Kavesar, Thane. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that so far as Survey No. 285 is concerned, respondent Corporation as being a Planning Authority be directed to take action for removal of unauthorized construction / encroachment; whereas construction which has come up on Survey No. 139 and 271, the State Government has jurisdiction to deal with this aspect, therefore State may be directed to do so. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the construction, if any, which has come up on Survey No. 285 and if the same is unauthorized and illegal, appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken, at the earliest. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the construction, if any, which has come up on Survey Nos. 139 and 271 is concerned, if the same is unauthorized and illegal, appropriate action with the help of the respondent Corporation in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard shall be taken, at the earliest. 2/3 In view of the above referred facts particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Corporation as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it is evident that if the construction on the concerned survey numbers is unauthorized and illegal, appropriate action would be taken by the respective Planning Authorities. Hence, no further action so far as the civil application is concerned is necessary. Civil application is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) Chandka

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Aashish Satpute for Applicant. Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad, APP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 15th January, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant , stand over to 29/01/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 29th January, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/02/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 7th February, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 01/03/2024 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 1st March, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 15/03/2024 ( at 12:30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 15th March, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 19/03/2024 ( at 12:30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 19th March, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 15/04/2024 ( at 12:30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Icham for Applicant. Mr. Pandruang H. Gaikwad, APP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 15th April, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 06/05/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 6th May, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 01/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 1st July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 8th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 11/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Advait Tamhankar i/by Mr. Aashish Satpute for Applicant. Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad, APP for State/Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 11th July, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 19/07/2024 ( at 2:30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 19th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 23/08/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Chaitanya Purankar i/by Mr. Amit Icham for Applicant. Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad, APP for State/Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 23rd August, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant , stand over to 13/09/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ] Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Mr.Advait Tamhankar i/b Aashish Satpute for the Applicant. Ms.Sangita Phad, APP for the State. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J RESERVED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 3rd OCTOBER, 2024. P.C. : 1 The Applicant/Accused in Crime No.6/2022 registered with Pune ATS, is seeking regular bail. 2 The aforesaid offence is made punishable under Section 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short "NDPS Act"). 3 The Applicant, on secret inputs was apprehended on 02.05.2022 after having found in possession of 118 Grams of Mephedrone costing around Rs.11,80,000/-. The seizure carried out in the investigation of the aforesaid offence, is of commercial quantity. 4 In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel for the Applicant while seeking regular bail would urge that the Respondent/Investigating Officer has failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. So as to substantiate the aforesaid contention, my attention is invited to the nature, the mode and manner in which the recovery was effected from the Applicant. The learned counsel would urge that since it is mandatory to follow the procedure laid down in the aforesaid provisions of the NDPS Act, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail, as the recovery was neither effected by a Gazetted Officer, nor search. 5 The learned APP, while opposing the prayer for bail would urge that not only the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 50 read with 41 to 43 of the NDPS Act is complied with, but also the report of Chemical Analyser certifies the contraband seized from the Applicant, being banned substance. It is claimed that the Applicant is already charge-sheeted and there is enough iota of evidence to directly connect the Applicant to the crime. As such, it is urged that the Application is liable to be rejected. 2/4 6 Having appreciated the rival claims, it is appreciated that on specific inputs the Applicant was apprehended on 02.05.2022 at about 6.30 p.m. and he was sensitized about his right under Section 41, 42, 43 and 50. The written consent given by the Applicant for carrying out personal search by the Police Officer sufficiently speaks of compliance of the statutory mandate as provided under the NDPS Act. 7 Apart from above, the station diary entry was made about the offence and the same was immediately forwarded to the immediate superior by the Assistant Police Inspector. As such, there is compliance of Section 42, so also Section 50. 8 Apart from above, the quantity seized from the Applicant appears to be certified by the Chemical Analyser to be a banned substance under the NDPS Act. The said quantity is commercial in nature. In the aforesaid backdrop, prima-facie, no technical flaw could be noticed in the investigation against the Applicant. Perusal of the investigation papers depict that there is strong evidence available against the Applicant so as to infer his prima facie involvement in the offence in question and the offence being grave in nature, I see no reason to consider and grant the prayer for releasing the Applicant on bail. 9 Apart from above, the Courts below have consequently rejected his regular Bail Applications by recording the cogent reasons. In this background, the Application stands rejected. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J)

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

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 209 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7591 OF 2010 Harsha Rohan Shirdhankar .. Applicant Vs. Rohan Kesarinath Shirdhankar .. Respondent Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 8th February, 2011. P.C. The Petition of the husband has been dismissed. The amount of maintenance deposited by the husband in this Court shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the wife. The cheque to be drawn by the Registrar of this Court shall be in the name of Ms. Harsha Ganesh Koparde. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.) Amk

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.109 OF 2022 Jaya Talakshi Chheda Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents Mr. Taraq Sayed i/b Mr. Ajay Dubey, for the F Petitioner. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P for the Respondents. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 24 th AUGUST 2022 P.C. : The aforesaid petition has been circulated for withdrawal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. It is made clear that we have not heard the petition on merits. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2017 Shri Khaldum Mohammed Hasan …. Applicants/Accused Momin & Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra .... Respondent through Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai. Mr. M.K.Kocharekar for Applicants/Accused. Mrs.P. P. Shinde, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2017. P.C . . Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. The application seeking prearrest bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Thane on 30th July, 2016. The learned APP waives service and seeks time to take instructions. Time as prayed for is granted. Stand over to 6th February, 2017. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 6th February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 10/02/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. M.K. Kocharekar, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2017 P.C.: 1 Learned APP submits that the investigating officer is not present. Stand over to 23/2/2017. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 23rd February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 09/03/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 09/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

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

Order - Status 15: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. M.K. Kocharekar, advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for State. CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE : MARCH 16, 2017 P.C.: 1 At the request of the learned Counsel for the applicant, stand over to 27/3/2017. No. interim relief. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. S,V. Kotwal i/by Meghashyam Kanoji Kocharekar For Applicant Smt P.P. Shinde App for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 27th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 29/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr S.V. Kotwal i/by Meghashyam Kanoji Kocharekar For Applicant Mrs P P Shinde App for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 29th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 05/04/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent Mr S.V. Kotwal i/by Meghashyam Kanoji Kocharekar For Applicant Ms P.P. Shinde App for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 5th April, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Applicant , Stand over to 20/04/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr S V Kotwal a/w Mr Ashish Sudhakar Sawant i/by M K Kochrekar For Applicant Smt P P Shinde App for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 24th April, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 04/05/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent r Ashish Sudhakar Sawant Applicants For Applicant Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 27th June, 2017 P.C. : Not before this Bench. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan & anr. .Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.A.S.Sawant, Advocate, for the Applicants Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent – State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. P.C. DATE : 29.06.2017 . Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board. Learned counsel for the Applicants seeks leave to withdraw this Application. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of as withdrawn. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.712 OF 2015 James D'Souza ..Applicant. versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ..... Mr. Parvez Memon with Mr. Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for the Applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, Addl. P.P. for the State. ..... CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. (VACATION COURT) 19th May 2015. P.C. : The Applicant has been charged with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the Deccan Police Station vide F.I.R. No.98 of 2015 dated 2nd April, 2015. It is the case of the complainant that she was working with the travel agency viz. Sudin Travel Agency, Karve Road, Pune. The Applicant on telephone approached her and pretended that he is the owner of Dark Oranges Hospitality company and regularly requires substantial quantity of air tickets. Under that pretext, the Applicant got booking of 20 air tickets, domestic and international, from the complainant. It is further the case of the Applicant that the total value of the said tickets was Rs.7,50,000/-. Despite repeated requests from the complainant, the Applicant did not pay the said amount and on some or the other pretext avoided to pay the same. It was further revealed to the complaint that the company viz. Dark Oranges Hospitality was not in existence at the address mentioned therein. She, therefore, lodged a complaint with the police. The police are investigating the said crime. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the present case is of civil nature and it is only because of the dispute about the quantum of amount to be paid to the complainant, the amount remained to be paid. He expressed his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove his bonafide. It appears to me that the offence is simpliciter under Section 420 and the Applicant has expressed his desire to prove his bonafide by depositing the disputed amount in this Court. On this ground, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail upto 11th June, 2015 on the following conditions : i) The Applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in the Registry of this Court within a period of three days from today. Subject to deposit of the said amount by the Applicant, in the event of arrest, the Applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount; ii) The Applicant shall attend the Deccan Police Station, Pune as and when called for between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.; iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and/or shall not indulge into any act amounting to tampering of evidence; iv) In case, the Applicant fails to deposit the amount within a period of three days from today, the protection granted to the Applicant shall come to an end without further reference to this Court; v) It is further made clear that the period of three days shall not be extended in any event and for whatsoever reason. Place this matter on Board on 11th June, 2015 for further orders. (A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 712 OF 2015 James D'Souza .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. Sherbir Panag a/w Parvez Memon & Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : 7th JULY 2015 PC : By an order dated 19/05/2015, Vacation Court (Coram: A. S. Gadkari, J.) had granted conditional pre-arrest bail to the applicant. Condition was that he shall deposit amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in this Court within a period of 3 days from 19/05/2015. It is an admitted position that order has not been complied with till today. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would still be willing to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-, however, according to him, amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- is the amount alleged by the complainant and that criminal proceedings cannot be treated as recovery proceedings. Learned Vacation Court had observed that counsel for the applicant had expressed his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove his bonafides. Today, as the amount is disputed, judicial propriety warrants that application be heard and decided by the same bench. In view of this, Registry shall take directions and place the matter before appropriate Bench. However, learned counsel for the applicant would be at liberty to take steps. Removed from board. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.712 OF 2015. Mr. James D'Souza ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for Applicant. Mrs. Prajakta Shinde, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM: A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 21st July 2015. P.C. 1 This matter is placed before me in pursuance of order dated 7th July 2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench as I had passed the interim order dated 19.5.2015. 2 Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 3 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, though the statement was made on behalf of the applicant on 19th May 2015 before this Court thereby expressing his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove bonafide of the applicant, the applicant could not deposit the same within the said stipulated period and even as of today as the applicant is running short of the funds. He further submits that the applicant is trying to settle the matter out of the Court with the original complainant, but due to order dated 19.5.20015 the same could not take place. 4 It is to be noted here that in order dated 19.5.20015 in para-2, a statement of the Counsel for the applicant was recorded. The said statement is undoubtedly based on the instructions given by the applicant to his Counsel. On the basis of the said statement, the disputed amount was to be deposited within a period of three days from the date of order i.e. from 19.5.2015. As stated above, the said order has not been complied with. The applicant has failed to comply with the said order and has enjoyed prearrest bail till today. It is surprising to note here that the police authorities have also not taken notice of the condition imposed in para no.3(i), upon the applicant by the said order dated 19.5.2015. Para-3 (i) of the order dated 19.5.20015 reads as under: "The Applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in the Registry of this Court within a period of three days from today. Subject to deposit of the said amount by the Applicant, in the event of arrest, the Applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal 2 bond of Rs.50,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount." 5 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that his client is ready and willing to deposit the admitted amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in this Court as the applicant is disputing amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as has been mentioned in the said order. In my considered opinion this statement is clearly an afterthought of the applicant after enjoying pre-arrest bail for a considerable period. 6 Thus, it is clear that order dated 19.5.2015 was self-operative and failure on the part of the applicant to deposit the said amount, the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant has already come to an end. May that as it may, apart from the prima facie observations made in the order dated 19.5.2015 even on merits also the application has little merits. The minute perusal of the First Information Report and the documents of investigation, reveals that the applicant is perpetrator of the said crime and his custodial interrogation by the police is necessary for the purpose of further investigation. 7 In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present Application and is accordingly dismissed. (A.S. GADKARI,J.) ABA.712-2015