All Cases

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Saunstha Maryaditt ..Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Surel Shah for the Petitioner CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. :- 1 Heard Shri Surel Shah for the Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable in two weeks. Apart from the Court notice private service through Courier / Email / Registered post A.D. is permitted. Parties are put to notice that the Petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. The Learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. (R.M.Savant, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : JULY 3, 2013 P.C. On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under : Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 14 30/07/2013 44,46 22/07/2013 49 TO 52 23/07/2013 54 TO 56 24/07/2013 57, 58 29/07/2013 59, 60 30/07/2013 61 31/07/2013 62 TO 66 07/08/2013 67 TO 76 12/08/2013 77 TO 96 13/08/2013 If in any of the above matters, ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is any extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. ( K.K. TATED, J )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit ... Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ... Respondents None for the Petitioner and Respondent. CORAM : K.K. TATED *, J. 7th August, 2013.* P.C. : Twice the matter is called out no one appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed for default. (K.K. TATED, J.) katkam k

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 867 OF 2010 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2393 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 867 OF 2010 Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat. Appellant. Versus Prakash Ramchandra Girme. Respondent. Mr. A. B. Tajane for the Appellant. Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Respondent. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 14TH JULY, 2010. P. C. : By consent, S. O. to 22nd July, 2010. Sd/ Sd/ (A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 867 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2393 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.867 OF 2010 Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat & ors. ....Appellants. Vs. Prakash Ramchandra Girme. ....Respondent. Mr.A.B.Tajane for appellants. Mr. Mandar Limaye for respondent. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 22, 2010 P.C. Not before the Bench of which one of us(A.M.Khanwilkar,J) is a member. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 11: Shri Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat & Ors. ..Appellants Vs. Shri Prakash Ramchandra Girme ..Respondent Shri P.B.Jagtap i/b Shri Ashok Tajane for the Appellants Shri Mandar Limaye for the Respondent Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ Date: 16th August 2010 P.C. mmj The Learned Counsel for the Appellants fairly states that this Appeal is not maintainable as the order is passed by the Trial Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants further states that he would like to file Revision Application. The permission is granted to take out appropriate proceedings as deem fit in accordance with law. The Certified copy and other papers annexed with the said First Appeal to be returned back to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants by giving simple copy of the same. Refund of Court fees as per rules. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR,J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi i/b. Miss Rutuja Ambekar for the Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle for Respondent No.10. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the rival parities. 2 For the present, the controversy is only about Survey No.119/2/B. I quote paragraph 42 from the judgment of the lower appellate Court which reads thus : " From this purpose entries in 7/12 extract of land survey no.119 at Exh.265 for the year 194344 is also material to consider. This entry shows that land was acquired by military and Mahadu and Vishnu had taken the land for cultivation from military. Anyhow one thing is clear that land gat no.119 was acquired by the government and Mahadu and heirs of Vishnu had received that compensation as per their respective shares. If this is the position then it has to be said that tenancy rights of the family came to an end and land gat no.119 became the property of the government." 3 The observation made in paragraph 41 and paragraph 42 shows that the land had vested in the Government in its military department. The finding is based on the basis of mutation entries but there it is not clear as contended by Mr. Kudale nor it is substantiated by the documentary evidence that the Government had released the land after it had vested in it. The parties are at liberty to place the documents of release, if any, on record, since Second Appeal No.450 of 2014 is admitted for final hearing. However, looking at the finding in paragraph 42 as above, it appears prima facie that neither the appellant nor the respondent would be able to claim any right to go ahead with the construction on the said land or as the case may be without hearing the concerned Government. Hence I make the following order : ORDER i) The appellant to join the concerned Government as a party to the present Civil Application as well as Second Appeal and effect service before the next date. ii) Issue notice to the newly added party in both Second Appeal as well as Civil Application, returnable after vacation for hearing on this application. iii) Till the decision of the application finally the earlier order granting statusquo shall continue in operation. iv) S.O. for 6 weeks. (A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.) waghmare.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for the applicants Mr.S.G.Kudle for the respondent No.10. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 26/11/2014 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Liberty granted to the respondents to file their additional AffidavitinReply and serve copy on the other side. 3 Liberty granted to the applicants to file reply to the said affidavit, if they so desire and serve copy on the other side on or before the next date. 4 Stand over for two weeks. 5 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/b Rutuja Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for respondent no.10. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 15/12/2014. P.C.: . Not on board. At the request of Advocate for the respondent no.10, matter is taken on board for urgent orders. 2 Liberty granted to the applicant to serve unserved respondent by private notice either by registered post A.D. and/or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect. 3 Matter to appear on board on 23.12.2014. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders r Jud ge's or ders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R.P. Mr. R.P. Raghuvanshi i/b R.A. Ambekar for the i/b R.A. Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for the respondent no.10. Ms. Jyotsna Pandi & P.S. Gujar for Union of India. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 23/12/2014. P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Appellant no.1 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav expired yesterday i.e. 22.12.2014. Hence, he requires some time to take appropriate steps for bringing her legal heirs on record. 3 On his request, matter adjourned to 19.01.2015. 4 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and Ors. Applicants : V/S : Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. Respondents * * * * * Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w. Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/by. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for respondent no.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, Advocate for respondents no.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for respondents no.26 and 27. * * * * * * Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 11th February, 2015. P.C. :- 1). Adjourned for reply of the Government to 25th February, 2015. Copy of the affidavit-in-reply shall be furnished in advance to the appellant and other respondents. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 23: Chittewan 1/5 C.A.1021-14 O.O. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 R.N. Yadav @ Dhariya .. Applicant (Org.Respondent No.10) In the matter between Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms Rutuja Ambekar, for Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, for Respondent No.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, for Respondents No.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for Respondents No.26 and 27. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 25th March, 2015 P.C. This is a common order on the above two Civil Applications. Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is taken out by the appellants for interim injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from dealing with or developing one of the suit properties i.e. the land at Survey No.119/2B of Pimple Saudagar, pending the disposal of the Second Appeal. Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is taken out by respondent No.10 for clarification that the adinterim order dated 08th October, 2014 passed on the Civil Application of the appellants is no more in operation in view of the subsequent order dated 12th December, 2014. The other relief sought by respondent No.10 is to direct the appellants to file an undertaking in the form of bank guarantee to the effect that in the event respondent No.10 succeeds in the appeal, the appellants will compensate him for the losses suffered on account of delay in the decision in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellants for partition of the joint family properties. The appeal was admitted on 06th August, 2014 with observations that prima facie it appears that there was no reason for the Appellate Court to exclude properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from partition and separate possession. These two properties are claimed to have been purchased by respondent No.10 from respondent No.1 by the sale deed dated 09th June, 1983. The Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the properties had been owned jointly by Vishnu, Laxman and Mahadev. Respondent No.1 is the son of Vishnu. In view of this factual position, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : Whether the appellate Court was right in excluding Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from the partition and separate possession ? Whether learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.10 waives service of the notice ? It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, some portion of the properties came to be acquired by Government of India. Therefore, by order dated 08th December, 2014, the appellants were directed to amend the Civil Application to implead the concerned parties. Accordingly, amendment was carried out and seven persons were impleaded to the Civil Application. They are (1) Union of India, (2) Director General, Defence Estate, (3) Principal Director, Defence Estate, (4) Defence Estate officer, Southern Command, (5) Commanding Officer, Southern Command, (6) State of Maharashtra and (7) The Collector of Pune. The interim relief in operation during pendency of the suit was direction to respondent No.10 to maintain statusquo in respect of the properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7. This order has been continued with observation that if respondent No.10 is allowed to deal with the properties or carry out the construction, the same would lead to further complication which should be avoided. Mr. Kudgle, the learned advocate for respondent No.10 submits that the order dated 23rd December, 2014 passed this Court, is no longer in operation since the same has not been specifically continued. He also submits that respondent No.10, who had purchased the properties as far back as in the year 1983 is unable to enjoy the properties purchased by him. Considering the nature of the substantial questions of law framed, properties in question need to be preserved in the same condition during pendency of the Second Appeal. Hence, the Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is allowed and Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Order - Status 7: Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.384 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 691 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1267 OF 2015 Sudhakar Lobhaji Ghaitadkay ... Appellant Vs. Madhukar Lobhaji Ghaitadkay & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Atul S. Tungare, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Girish M. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 29th January, 2018. P.C.: This Appeal is pending for admission since 2014. In between, Civil Application No. 1264 of 2015 was moved by the appellant for bringing legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1-Madhukar Lobhaji Ghaitadkay. In the Application, it is prayed that respondent nos. 1A to 1E are the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1. Another Civil Application No. 691 of 2015 was preferred by the appellant in February, 2015 praying that respondent nos. 6A and 6B are to be brought on record in the event of death of respondent No. 6-Usha Ashok Sonawane. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that in bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 6, i.e., 6A and 6B, there is delay of 211 days in filing the Application because he had mistaken belief that legal heirs of deceased respondent no.6 -Usha Ashok Sonawane are already on record and hence delay is caused. The learned counsel for original respondent No. 1 is present. He submitted that one of the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 is dead, however, he wants to verify. In view of this, for the reasons mentioned in Civil Application No. 691 of 2015, delay is condoned. Civil Application Nos. 1267 of 2015 and 691 of 2015 for bringing their respective legal heirs on record are allowed. The legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 and deceased respondent No. 6 are to be brought on record. Amendment to be carried out within one week. Place the Appeal from Order for admission on 26th February, 2018. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2096 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2004 Subhan Mohamed Yusuf Parkar and another ... Petitioners versus Dastgir Mohamed Sathe and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. H.A. Solkar, for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pakale, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. M.A. Solkar, for Respondents Nos. 6 and 10. Mr. A.H. Palekar, for Respondents Nos. 25 and 26. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 3rd September 2004 P.C.: . Preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the Respondents that the main writ petition is finally disposed of. It is contended that if the grievance of the Petitioners is about the correctness of the order passed by the Inspector of the office of the Charity Commissioner, appointed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the appropriate remedy is to question that decision by substantive proceedings and not by way of civil application in a disposed of writ petition. To over come this objection, Mr. Solkar, for the applicants, contends that the grievance of the applicants is about the inappropriate understanding and misapplication of the directions given by this Court in the disposed of writ petition. Even so, to my mind, there is substance in the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the Respondents about the maintainability of the civil application. The appropriate course is to permit the applicants to withdraw this application with liberty to resort to such other substantive remedy as may be available and permissible by law. That be done within one week from today. In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo as of today. Civil Application disposed of accordingly. . Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Nitin Sejpal, advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for State. CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JULY 8, 2015 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to respondents. Learned APP waives service for respondent No. 5. Notice returnable on 5/8/2015. Private service permitted. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2015 Srushti Satish Patel ....Applicant V/S Satish Manilal Pateland Ors ....Respondent CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 19th December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand over to 20/01/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: 34.APPLN.357.15.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.357 OF 2015 Srushti Satish Patel … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Smt. Pooja Sejpal, i/by Nitin Sejpal for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the Applicant – State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th JANUARY 2018 P.C.: This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr.Mumbai in ABA/1077/2015 by its Order dated 21.05.2015. Learned APP on instructions submitted that in the present case after completion of investigation, police have submitted chargesheet on 24.08.2017. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Pakvasa V/s. Sameer Pakvasa and Anr. in Criminal Application No.733/2014 in ABA No.1785/2014 dated 25.01.2016 the present application for cancellation of bail on merits after filing of chargesheet does not survive and is accordingly disposed off. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 4: Chitra Sonawane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2155 OF 2023 Vijay Kisan Waghmare ] Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] Respondents. Ms Sahana Manjesh for the petitioner. Ms MH Mhatre,APP for State. CORAM: Nitin W. Sambre & R.N.Laddha, JJ. DATE : 5th July, 2023. Learned APP seeks time so as to enable him to place on record categorization of the petitioner, who is already convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, and is ordered to undergo life imprisonment. .... Stand over to 18 th August , 2023 . [R.N.Laddha, J.] [Nitin W. Sambre, J.] Page No. 1 of 1 5 July 2023.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2155 OF 2023 Vijay Kisan Waghmare ... Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ……. Ms Sahana Manjesh for the Petitioner. Ms MH Mhatre, APP for State. .…... CORAM: Nitin W. Sambre & R.N.Laddha, JJ. DATE : 18 August, 2023. .... P.C.: Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out within 4 weeks. Stand over to 3 rd October, 2023. [R.N.Laddha, J.] [Nitin W.Sambre, J.] 18 Aug 2023.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2155 OF 2023 Vijay Kisan Waghmare …..Petitioner Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. …..Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 3rd OCTOBER, 2023. P.C.:- Learned APP on instructions submitted that, by an Order dated 17th August, 2023 passed by the Competent Authority, the Petitioner has been placed in category 4(b) of 2010 Guidelines. As none appears for the Petitioner, stand over to 25th October, 2023. (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2155 OF 2023 Vijay Kisan Waghmare .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Sahana Manjesh, for the Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. DATE : 25th OCTOBER, 2023. P. C.:- Learned APP seeks time to file reply of Respondent No. 2 to the Petition. At his request, stand over to 14th December, 2023. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 14: MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2155 OF 2023 … ... Vijay Kisan Waghmare .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Sahana Manjesh for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 30 th JULY, 2024 P.C:- The Petitioner, a convict, undergoing life imprisonment on being convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, District Osmanabad, for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, has been categorised by the State Government under 4(b) of the 2010 guidelines. The counsel for the Petitioner raised a grievance about incorrect categorization, as according to her, the offence committed by the Petitioner would be entitled to be categorised in a category, where murder is committed without premeditation in an individual capacity i.e. 4(a) of the guidelines of premature release of prisoners serving life sentence dated 15/03/2010. At this juncture, we must take a note that category 4(b) reads to the following effect :- "4(b) Murder committed with premeditation or a person having criminal history". Category 4(a) has prescribed the period of imprisonment to be undergone as 20 years, whereas category 4(b) prescribe the punishment to be undergone as 22 years. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prayagbai wd/o Sakharam Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1 , but on perusal of the said decision, the fact itself would reveal the background in which the incident had occurred, when some altercation took place between Shobha, Sarubai-her mother-in-law and Prayagbai, sisterin-law and this prompted the petitioner Prayagbai to pour kerosene on Shobha and Sarubai setting her on fire. On alarm being raised by Shobha, neighbours came to her rescue. This offence was categorised as without premeditation and we have no difficulty, as regards the conclusion that has been reached by the Division Bench. However, we must take into account the facts of the present case and from perusal of the judgment by the Sessions Court, which is upheld by the High Court, the case of the prosecution is to the effect that Nandabai Waghmare alongwith her deceased brother was sleeping on a cot and at around 12 midnight, the accused reached there and he gave blows with koyta to her brother Sudam on his forehead, above right eye and also to her and injured both of them. Sudam succumbed to the injuries on 26/01/2007 i.e. 7 days after the incident. We made serious attempt to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel, but we remain unpersuaded. The term 'premeditation' specifically indicate a crime planned 1 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 762 in advance and when we ascertained the facts of the case, it is evident from the prosecution case that the accused, who is brother of husband of Nandabai demanded Rs.80/- to her on 20/01/2007, which she paid and after taking meals, they went to sleep. In the mid-night, the accused reached there being armed with koyta and mounted the assault. The prosecution witnesses deposed to that effect and PW 10, who examined Sudam, had noticed two injuries on him. He was, thereafter, referred to Civil Hospital, Solapur for further treatment and the postmortem report refers to heamatoma present under scalp in right frontal and temporo parital region, multiple fracture of interior and middle cranial forsa on right side. It also record presence of subdural haematoma along the tentorium cerebelli and posterior falx. In the wake of the above, we are not satisfied with the submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, that he ought to have been categorised under 4(a) of the guidelines and, according to us, the State Government in the wake of the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, which is upheld by this Court, that the crime was committed with premeditation, has rightly categorised him in category 4(b). Upholding the said order, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 579 OF 2004 The Principal, Mahatma Phule Mahavidyalaya & Anr. ... ...... Petitioners. Versus Mr.Purushottam Nathuram Desai & Ors. ... ... ... ..... Respondents. Mr. Aniruddha Pratinidhi for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2005. P.C.: Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted, returnable after four weeks. Notice to indicate that the petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1652 OF 2009 Girish Vasant Kolhe .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Through Jail Shri A.S. Gadkari, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 P.C: The petitioner is serving life imprisonment and has undergone more than five years of imprisonment. He applied for furlough leave. It appears that till date he has never been released on furlough. Furlough leave is to be granted as a matter of right. However, the State has power under Rule 4 of the relevant Rules to deny furlough to a convict on certain grounds. In the present case, furlough has been denied on the ground that the concerned police officer was of the view that if the petitioner is released, there would be danger to public peace. We have not found any material having been considered by the concerned police officer for coming to such a conclusion. It was merely an apprehension of the concerned police officer. For these reasons, we allow the petition; set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave on usual terms and conditions. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)