All Cases

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1771 OF 2010 Amit Anant Thite and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Venkatesh A.Shastry for Petitioners Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for State. Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 18TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. Writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. If an application for exemption is filed by the petitioners in the Trial Court, the same may be considered favourably and the presence may not be insisted unless it is absolutely necessary. petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.966 OF 2013 MR.SHABBU RAUF KHAN )...APPLICANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar Advocate for Applicant. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane APP for the State. CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : rd JULY, 2013. 3 P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 Since the period of three moths stipulated by the order dated 12.4.2013 is not over, the application is premature, so to say. 3 However, in the circumstances explained by the learned counsel for the applicant, instead of rejecting the application on that ground, it would be proper to consider it after 12.7.2013. 4 Stand over to 16.7.2013. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.) avk 1/1

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.966 OF 2013 SHABBU RAUF KHAN )...APPLICANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar APP for the State. CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 16th JULY, 2013. P.C. : 1 Heard Mr.Satyavrat Joshi, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, the learned APP for the State. 2 The previous application filed by the applicant was withdrawn by him, after submitting that the applicant be granted liberty to apply afresh for bail, should the trial not commence within a reasonable time. Liberty was granted by the court to the applicant to apply afresh for bail, in the event of the trial not commencing within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the said order by the court. The order was passed on 12.4.2013. 3 I am informed that, though the said period is over, the trial has not yet commenced. The learned counsel for the applicant has produced a copy of the roznama of the trial court, which indicates that the trial has not yet commenced, and that, even a Charge has not yet been framed. 4 I have, therefore, considered the facts of the case, afresh. It is clear that though the participation of the applicant in the alleged incident, is indicated by the material in the chargesheet, the role attributed to the applicant is not as grave, as has been attributed to, two other accused. The applicant is alleged to have given a blow to the deceased by a pana on the wrist of the deceased. 5 The applicant is of 19 years. There are no antecedents. The applicant is in custody for a period of more than nine months. 6 Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the applicant of availing of liberty, subject to certain conditions. 7 The application is allowed. 8 The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/, with one surety in the like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/ each, on the following conditions : i) The applicant shall not contact, meet or approach any of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner, whatsoever. ii) The applicant shall report to the Pimpri Police Station every Sunday, between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., till the disposal of the case against him. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1211 OF 2015 A/W CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1539/2015 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2992/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2990/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2991/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.666/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.667/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2988/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2989/2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2984/2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1211/2015 Dilip Babubhai Shah & Ors. … Petitioners. Vs. Babubhai Sardarmal Shah & Ors. … Respondents. Mr. Nitin V. Gangal, Advocate for respondent nos.4, 7, 10,11 and 12. Ms K.R. Daviervala & Mr. Y.P. Jijina i/b Mulla & Mulla & AB &C for applicants/appellants. CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 30th JUNE, 2022. CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2022.07.02 17:18:57 +0530 P.C.: This Court has suggested the parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute, in view of the fact that most of the appellants and respondents are senior citizens. Learned Counsel for the parties seek a week's time to suggest the name of a 'Mediator'. List the appeal for further directions, on 08.07.2022. (PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 8: Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1211 OF 2015 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2984 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2988 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2991 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2990 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2992 OF 2020 A/W CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1539 OF 2015 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2989 OF 2020 A/W INTERIM APPLICATION NO.666 OF 2020 Dilip Babubhai Shah and others. ] Appellants Vs. Babubhat Sardamal Shah and others.] Respondents Ms. K.R. Daviervala i/b M/s. Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe, for Appellants/Applicants. ..... ..... Mr. Nitin V. Gangal, for Respondents No.4,7,10,11 and 12. CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. DATED : 15th JULY, 2022. P.C. Parties are contemplating amicable settlement through the process of mediation. Parties are at liberty to take necessary steps in that regard and inform the Court accordingly. Stand over to 22nd July, 2022. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]

Order - Status 10: S.S.KilajeIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 Dilip Babubhai Shah and Ors. .. Appellants Versus Babubhai Sardarmal Shah & Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2984 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2988 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 667 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2990 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2991 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2992 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1539 OF 2015 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2989 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2020 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2015 Ms. K.R.Daviervala i/by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craige Blunt and Caroe for the Appellants .................... Ms. Prerna Shukla i/by Nitin V. Gangal for Respondent Nos. 4,7,10,11,12 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JULY 22, 2022 P.C. : Ms. Daviervala, learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants have taken out 8 interim applications viz. IA/2984/2020, IA/2988/2020, IA/667/2020, IA/2990/2020, IA/2991/2020, IA/2992/2020, IA/2989/2020 & IA/666/2020, for bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondents on record as some of the respondents have expired. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.17 who has expired on 22.03.2019. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 211 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 666 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 667 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.16 who has expired on 26th/27th January, 2019. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 264 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 667 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2984 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.5 who has expired on 08.06.2013. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2984 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2988 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 who has expired on 06.02.2014. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2988 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2989 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3 who has expired on 03.12.2016. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 1090 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2989 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2990 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2 who has expired on 06.03.2019. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 267 days 36.ao.1211.15+.doc to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2990 of 2020 stands disposed of. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2991 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.28 who has expired on 06.10.2015. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2991 of 2020 stands disposed of. 36.ao.1211.15+.doc INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2992 OF 2020:- By this application, applicants seek to substitute legal heirs of deceased respondent No.33 who has expired on 05.06.2013. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days to file the application and bring the legal heirs on record stands condoned. Leave to amend is granted. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order as per the schedule appended to the Interim Application. Once amendment is carried out, applicants are directed to serve the newly impleaded respondents and file appropriate affidavit of service and inform the newly added respondents about the hearing scheduled before the Mediator. Interim Application No. 2992 of 2020 stands disposed of. Ms. Daviervala on instructions submits that appellants have already compromised and settled the matter/lis with respondent Nos. 42 to 85 and in that view of the matter seeks leave of this Court to delete the names of respondent Nos. 42 to 85. Affidavit to that effect shall be filed by the appellants within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order. Leave to delete respondent Nos. 42 to 85 as prayed for is granted. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order. Re-verification stands dispensed with. Both learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that as suggested by this Court on the previous occasion, they have taken instructions from their clients and are ready to go before the Court appointed Mediator for reconciliation / settlement. Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate practicing in this Court and having his office at 103, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai (Mobile No. 9819668711) is appointed as Mediator to mediate on all issues and disputes between the parties. Appellants shall pay 50% of the fee whereas respondent Nos. 4,7,10,11,12, who are the principle contesting respondents shall bear the remaining 50% fees of the Mediator. The Mediator is requested to submit his report within a period of 8 weeks from today. Appeal from Order No. 1211 of 2015, stood over to 20th September, 2022. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2022.07.28 18:26:46 +0530

Order - Status 5: SALUNKE J V Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.13 17:42:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17167 OF 2022 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap } Petitioner Versus Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande } and Ors. } Respondents Ms. Radhali Kadam with Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. Gole for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for respondent no. 2. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little and Co. for respondent no. 4. Mr. Aditya A. Joshi i/b. Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for respondents 5 and 6 (MSETCL). CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE: JANUARY 13, 2023 P.C.: 1. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 seeks time to file affidavit in reply to the interim application. The reply shall be filed within one week from today. 2. Place the matter on 1st February 2023. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17167 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap ....Petitioner/Applicant V/S Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande & Ors. ....Respondents … Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Mr. A.R. Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for Respondent No.2-MSEB. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kiran Gavellkar i/b M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4-MSEDCL. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 7-State. … Mr. Abhijit Joshi for Respondent Nos.5 and 6-MSETCL. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 1st FEBRUARY 2023. P.C.: 1 We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant and the learned Advocates for the respective Respondents. 2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed Interim Application for amendment in view of the subsequent development. He submits that the Petitioner had challenged the appointment of Respondent No.1 initially with Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Fresh selection process was conducted by Respondent No.4 in which Respondent No.1 is selected as Director (Operations). The same is also against the rules. The rules require that a person with impeccable past history can be considered. The Respondent No.1 does not fit into it. 3 The learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the fresh appointment is by another employer, the cause of action of the Writ Petition now does not subsist. In view of that in a Writ Petition, for which the cause of action does subsist, amendment may not be allowed. 4 It is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that when the PIL was filed Petitioner was seeking writ of quo warranto qua appointment of Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Respondent No.4 conducted fresh selection process and has selected Respondent No.1 as Director (Operations). The same would be a completely fresh cause of action as the employer and the designation has changed. 5 In light of above, as the relief in the original Writ Petition itself has become infructuous, it would be improper to consider the present 2/3 Application for amendment. It is for the Petitioner to take appropriate steps by filing proceedings as may be maintainable. 6 In light of above, the PIL and Interim Application stands disposed of. The Petitioner may take proceedings as may be permissible under law. In that event all contentions of the Petitioner as well as respective Respondents are kept open. No costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.04 10:27:34 +0530

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2006 Santosh Madhukar Chavan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Shashikant Samant for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 31/1/2006. P.C. Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. This petition impugns an order dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg below Exh.131 and 148 in Sessions Case No.3/4/5 of 2005. The crux of the matter is that during the trial certain witnesses who had made certain statements of facts in their police statements were examined. When they entered into the witness box, in their examination in chief they did not depose about the said facts mentioned in the police statements. However, in their cross examination a version which was contrary to what they had stated in police statement relating to those facts was elicited by the defence. On eliciting such a contradictory version in their substantive evidence, a contradiction with their earlier police statement was sought to be brought on record. This has been disallowed by the trial court on the ground that a statement of fact which find place in the police statement recorded in the course of the investigation cannot be used to contradict the different version which had been elicited during the cross examination of the witness in the court. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the rules relating to use of police statements in evidence. In short, the said section provides that when any witness is called by the prosecution in an inquiry or trial and the statement of such witness has been reduced to writing in the police investigation, then any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules relating to cross examination as to previous statements made by a witness in writing. It provides that a witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into :2: writing, and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Neither Section 162 nor Section 145 lay down any embargo to the effect that such a contradiction can only be brought on record in the examination in chief. It is well settled that the evidence of a witness consists of examination in chief, his cross examination as well as re-examination if any. In the absence of any embargo, it would be open to the defence to prove a contradiction, if any exists, between the police statement and the evidence which has been brought on record during the cross examination of the witness. The Trial Court in the present case appears to be of the view that the defence cannot be allowed to create a contradiction and then prove the same. There is no question of creation of contradiction. If within the parameters which define the scope of the cross examination, any statement is brought on record by the defence in the cross examination, then said statement is a part of the evidence and if their exists a previous statement of the witness which is contradictory then in my view, the contradiction can be put to the witness and brought on record. In the circumstances, in my view this is a case where rule will have to be made absolute. It has been observed in the impugned order that certain questions were improperly asked in the sense that they pertained to nature of the contents of the statement made to the police. It is made clear that the reasoning given hereinabove would not permit the defence to ask the witness directly about the contents of the statement said to have been made to the police officer. I am informed that the evidence of some of the witnesses in respect of whose evidence questions were disallowed, has been already completed. I am further informed that this application was moved principally because the defence may face similar difficulty in the recording of evidence yet to come. In view of the closing of the evidence of the said witnesses, it will be open to the defence to apply for recall of those witnessses and if any such application is made, the same may be dispose off on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly and the the petition is disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 27th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/07/2017. 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 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 6th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 26/07/2017. 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 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr Respondent Y.R.Mishra i/by Lokegaonkar Upendra Anant For Applicant Deepali Pathak i/by Purnima H Kantharia Respondent No.2 H.M.Pethe, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 20th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand Over to 02/08/2017. Supplementary Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Y.R.Mishra i/by Lokegaonkar Upendra Anant For Applicant Purnima H Kantharia Respondent No.2 H.M.Pethe, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 2nd August, 2017 P.C. : Stand Over to 04/08/2017 First On Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. …Respondents Mr. Y. R. Mishra i/b. Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar for the applicant. Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the respondent – State. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia a/w. Ms. Deepali Patankar for respondent no.2. PI Chavan, Crime Branch Thane City, Anti Robbery Squad present. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 4 th AUGUST, 2017. P.C. : This is an application in connection with CR No.II111/2016 registered with Kasarvadavali Police Station, Thane. The offences were registered under sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b) of Atomic Energy Act. The applicant was arrested on 24th December, 2016 and since then he is in custody. The prosecution case is that on 24th November, 2016, one of the informant of the complainant brought one sample piece of iron like metal which was weighing about 32 grams. The informant informed him that there are many more quantities of such metal available with the persons from whom he has availed the said sample piece. On 24th November, 2016, the sample piece was forward to the Board of Radiations Isotope Technology (BRIT) / Bhabha Atomic Research and Energy Department (BARC) and got confirmation about the said material/metal. On 6th December, 2016, a report was submitted to the Thane Crime Branch by BRIT/BARC, the said report states that the material was Depleted Uranium and used for civilian uses such as counter weights of Aircraft, Shielding in medical radiation therapy and Industrial radiography material equipments, etc. It is alleged that being prescribed material license was required to be obtained from the Department of Atomic Energy if material is beyond 1000 kg. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20th December, 2016, the applicant and the other accused were apprehended while they were in process of selling the Depleted Uranium to the purchaser. The material was seized by the police. The applicant was arrested on 24th December, 2016. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody from date of arrest and investigation is completed and further detention is not necessary. It is submitted that the offence under section 24 of Atomic Energy Act as alleged by the prosecution is punishable with maximum imprisonment upto 5 years. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Although, it is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was found in possession of material on 20th December, 2016. He was arrested on 24th December, 2016. There was no reason for the investigating agency to arrest him after a period of four days. It is further submitted that the applicant is carrying on family business ship breaking, aircraft breaking. The applicant is the Director of Kehav Ispat Pvt. Ltd. which is in the business of trading in Iron NA Steel Etc. It is further submitted that the applicant was illegally detained by the police from 20th December, 2016 till 23rd December, 2016. It is submitted that alleged Depleted Uranium which is found from the custody of the applicant is weighing about 8.861 kg. Which is used for civilian uses such as counter weights of Aircraft, Shielding in medical radiation therapy and Industrial radiography material equipments, etc. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the report issued by the BRIT / BARC dated 6th December, 2016. It is submitted that the Depleted Uranium was not illegally obtained or smuggled. It is submitted that the material was obtained officially from the auction of the scrap of old aircraft which was done by the Indian Airlines through MSTS (Government of India Enterprises). In the said auction, heap of scrap aircraft was purchased by one Mrs. Punshi, the same was admittedly sold to the applicant in the year 2006. As per the prosecution case, admittedly, the applicant was in possession of the said Uranium from 2006 till it was recovered by the investigating machinery on 20th December, 2016. It is submitted that in the report dated 6th December, 2016 it is stated that the material sold was Depleted Uranium and the same is used for civilian uses. In the report, it is stated that the sample being weighing about 32 grams which analysed by non destructive gamma spectrometry method and the sample was found to be Depleted Uranium. It is further stated that this fact Uranium is byproduct of nuclear fuel reprocessing cycle and are used for civilian uses which include counter weights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment, container for transporting radioactive materials etc. Being prescribed material, license is required to be obtained from Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) beyond 1000 kg. It is also stated that clearance is required from Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), if the quantity exceeds the exempted quantity as notified under AERB directive, from radiation safety view point. It is further submitted that the prosecution case is connoted that the alleged material was initially recovered from one unknown person which appears to be some informant of the police machinery. It is submitted that the police have not disclosed the person from whom initially uranium sample was recovered. It is submitted that considering the fact quantity is below 1000 kg., hence license is not required. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case Sanjay Chandra V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1 . Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v/s. State of Rajasthan 2 . In the decision of Apex Court the Supreme Court has considered the issue of custody of the accused and the parameter to be considered for grant of bail. In the second decision, the Rajasthan High Court had granted bail to the accused who was involved in the similar crime and he was found in possession of the material for which provisions of Atomic Energy Act was made applicable. The said accused was granted bail by the said High Court considering the fact that the offence is punishable with imprisonment of five years and the accused was in custody from the date of arrest. 4. Learned APP strongly opposed the application for bail. It is 1 AIR (2012) 1 SCC 40 2 Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2016 submitted that the applicant is involved in serious crime. Reliance is placed on notification dated 28th April, 2016 which is clarified by notification dated 30th June, 2017. It is submitted even for possession of lesser quantity, licence is required and the material which is recovered from the accused was a prescribed substance. It is submitted that it is dangerous to possess such material since it is hazardous to the health of the citizens. It is further submitted that such material can be utilised for manufacturing of bomb etc. It is submitted that statement of various persons were recorded wherein it is disclosed that the attempts have been made by the accused / applicant to sell the said material to various persons. It is further submitted that the applicant was aware that he is required to obtained permission from the concerned authorities to possess such material. The applicant had carried out test in respect of the material in private laboratory in the year 2016 and therefore he ought to have surrendered the said material to the concerned authority. It is further submitted that although the offence is punishable for imprisonment upto five years, gravity of the offence may be considered and bail may not be granted. I have perused the documents on record. It is pertinent to note that the applicant is arrested on 24th December, 2016. The investigation is completed and the chargesheet has been filed. It is admitted position that the maximum punishment which is awarded for the offence under section 24 of Atomic Energy Act is five years. The applicant had purchased the subject material from one Mrs. Punshi who had purchased same in official auction by the Indian Airlines through MSTS (Government of India Enterprises) in the year 2006. It is the prosecution case is that the applicant has been in possession of the said material since 2006 till it is recovered by the police. It is not the case of the prosecution at any point of time that the applicant had tried to misuse the same. The report of BARC /BIRT dated 6th December 2016 indicates that it is Depleted Uranium and being used genrally for civilian purposes stipulated therein. It is true that the prosecution has relied upon the subsequent notification which states that the licence is reuired. However, what can be considered is that the maximum punishment prescribed under Atomic Energy Act is five years and the applicant is in custody for seven months. The statement of various persons are recorded. It appears that trial may not be concluded in short span of time. The applicant has been in business of scrap since beginning which is the family business and the source of uranium is the auction sale conducted by the Government of India Undertaking and the alleged material was not obtained by illegal method from any illegal source. Taking into consideration all the documents, case of bail is made out. Hence, I pass following order; :: ORDER :: (i) Bail Application No.1267 of 2017 is allowed. (ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.II111/2016 registered with Kasarvadavali Police Station, Thane on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only.) with one or more sureties in the like amount. (iii) The applicant is directed to report the concerned police station once in a month on the first Saturday of the month between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm till further orders. (iv) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash security in the sum of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only.) in lieu of sureties for a period four weeks from today. (v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and / or prosecution witnesses. (vi) The applicant shall attend the trial Court on date of hearing of the case. (vii) Application stands disposed of. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1285 OF 2011 Murlimanohar Nandalaji Jari and anr .. Applicants -versus The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents. Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat, for the applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. Rahul R. Singh, for the original complainant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 4th January, 2012 P.C. Time to deposit money is extended by one week with the understanding that if the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the order shall stand revoked. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 9: APPP-1.12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1285 OF 2011 Murlimanohar Nandalalji Jaria & Anr. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Shri Ranvir Shekhawat for the Applicants. Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP, for the State. Shri Rahul R. Singh for the Complainant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JANUARY 11, 2012 P.C: The learned Metropolitan Magistrate may accept the amount without insisting on the presence of the applicants through the lawyer of the applicants. The application accordingly stands disposed of. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)