Tag: Criminal Others

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.300 OF 2017 Devila K. Shah … Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2017 Manashi K. Shah … Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. … Respondents Mr. P.V. Dubey a/w. Bindu Gupta for the Applicant. Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th MARCH 2018 P.C.: Issue notice to Respondent No.1, returnable after four weeks. In addition to Court notice, the applicant is permitted to serve Respondent No.1 by way of private notice and to file an affidavit of service after Respondent No.1 is duly served. Stand over to 25.04.2018. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2017 Mansi K.Shah ..Applicant Vs Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Princekumar Dubey for applicant. Mr. Devang Lakhotia i/b Juris Consillis for respondent No.1. Mr. V.V. Gangurde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 25th APRIL 2018. P.C.: 1] This is an application for condonation of delay of 69 days in filing the application for leave to file appeal. 2] Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 3] The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the application. However, for the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.S.GADKARI, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 4: VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SHERLA Digitally signed by VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SHERLA Date: 2021.09.30 16:08:34 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 P.C.: 1. Issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 20th October, 2021. 2. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent – State. 3. In the meantime, the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint an advocate from the legal aid panel to represent the petitioner, where the petition has been received directly through Jail. 4. The learned advocate appointed to represent the petitioner through legal aid panel shall ensure that memo of petition is prepared and filed in the Registry after serving the copy of the same to the Public Prosecutor, before the next date. 5. List on 20th October, 2021. (N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 20th October, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 25/11/2021. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Ajinkya Udane i/b. Niranjan Bhavke, appointed through Legal Aid for the Petitioner Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent - State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 18 NOVEMBER 2021 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2021.11.24 12:17:57 +0530 P.C. :- By this Petition the Petitioner is seeking Emergency (Covid-19) Parole. By order dated 19 September 2020 the request is rejected by the Respondent – authority. During the pendency of the Petition, another application was made by the Petitioner which is rejected by order dated 6 May 2021 which is placed on record. The reason given for rejection is that when the Petitioner was released on parole on 7 March 2013, he did not return within the period stipulated and overstayed for 2193 days and had to be arrested and brought back to the jail. If in view of this conduct of the Petitioner, the authority is of the opinion that the Petitioner will not be available if he released on emergency parole, the opinion cannot be considered to be unjustified. The exercise of discretion by the Respondents is not arbitrary or perverse. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.

Order - Status 5: 17 wp 444-20=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2020 Mukhtar @ Raj Zakir Khan … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,& N.R.BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 28th JANUARY 2020 P.C. Issue notice to Respondent, returnable on 06.03.2020. Learned APP waives notice for State. High Court Legal Aid Committee to appoint panel Advocate for the Petitioner. (N.R.BORKAR,J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: 23-cr-wp-444-20.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2020 Mukhtar @ Raj Zakir Khan … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ---------------- Mr. Sagar S. Bhandare (appointed) for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent – State. ---------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2020. P.C. 1] For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4256 of 2018, which we have allowed, this petition can be conveniently disposed of with following directions: "We fnd both orders are unsustainable and the same are quashed and set aside. We direct the frst authority to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to it." 2] Here, the prisoner was under trial from 19th April 2016 to 2 nd July 2018 and thereafter, as a convict from 3rd July 2018 onwards. Dinesh Sherla 1/2 3] Thus, he has never been released either on bail or on any other leave and hence, the adverse police report against him is not justifed. 4] Hence, with similar liberty and directions as mentioned in our earlier order supra, we partly allow this petition and dispose of it. 5] This order be communicated to the prisoner in Jail. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

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

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

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

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

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

Order - Status 5: RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date: 2022.01.25 16:14:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2022 Ganesh Milind Todkari ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Ritesh M. Thobde for the Applicant. Mr. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2022 (Through Video Conferencing) P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The applicant has impugned the order dated 29th December, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by which, the learned Judge was pleased to issue non-bailable warrant as against the applicant. The applicant has also impugned another order of the same date i.e. 29th December, 2021, by which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, rejected the applicant's application seeking anticipatory bail, on the ground, that the said application was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there were sufficient grounds made out by the applicant for cancellation of the nonbailable warrant as well as for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned APP vehemently opposes the application. He submitted that the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant, pursuant to the issuance of non-bailable warrant was not maintainable and as such, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. He submits that it was always open for the applicant to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant, issued by the Trial Court, as against the applicant. Perused the papers. From the order dated 29th December, 2021, it appears that on the said date, despite repeated calls, neither the accused nor his Advocate is present. The learned Judge observed that the evidence cannot be recorded in the absence of the applicant/accused and as such, issued non-bailable warrant to the applicant/accused and notice to the surety. After the non-bailable warrant was issued, another application was filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail application. Learned Judge, after observing that the bail bond has been forfeited and non-bailable warrant has already been issued and hence, the application seeking anticipatory bail was not maintainable and accordingly, rejected the same. As far as the order dated 29th December, 2021 is concerned, the observation of the learned Judge in the said order that, an anticipatory bail application was not maintainable, cannot be faulted with, inasmuch as, the applicant ought to have filed an application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant instead of filing an application seeking anticipatory bail. Without going into the merits, for the reasons for nonappearance of the applicant/accused on the said date i.e. on 29th December, 2021, liberty is granted to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued to the applicant. If an application is filed seeking cancellation of the nonbailable warrant issued by the Trial Court on 29th December, 2021, the learned Judge to consider the same on its own merits after hearing the parties. Leaned APP also has no objection if the applicant is permitted to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of his non-bailable warrant before the Trial Court. The application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the application and as such, all contentions of the applicant are kept open. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. J.G. Reddy, for applicant. Ms. S.S. Kaushik, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 10th December 2015 P.C.: The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the connected application bearing no.310 of 2015 is placed for hearing on 6th January 2016 and requests that the present application may also be tagged along with it. At his request, stand over to 6th January 2015. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 310 OF 2015 Mohammed Ishtiaque Ebrahim Bagban ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent WITH CR. APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2015 Mohammed Ishtiaque Ebrahim Bagban ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Mr. Jagdish G. Reddy For Applicant Mrs. A.A. Takalkar,APP for state CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 18th January, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to 25/01/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.654 OF 2015 IN APPEAL ST.NO.599 OF 2015 Vinod Ramesh Pimple Applicant -Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Mrs. Savita Prabhune for applicant Mrs. P.P.Bhosale, APP for State CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th August 2015 P.C. 1] Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant on this application for condonation of delay of 30 days, in filing the appeal challenging the conviction for the offences under section 304 part II of IPC and also under section 323 and 325 of IPC. 2] Reportedly, the applicant is in jail. As such, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed. 3] Appeal is admitted. 4] Hearing of the application for bail/ suspension of sentence is S.O. for two weeks. ( A.R.JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan … Petitioner Vs. Shri Dr. K. Venkateshan & Ors. … Respondents ------- Mrs. Misbaah Solkar a/w Mr. Amin Solkar, advocates for the petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents-State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & N.B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ. DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020 P.C. : Heard. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 10/02/2020. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and assures this court that original record pertaining to the detention of the detenu maintained by the respondents will be made available on the next date of hearing. (N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.) Mugdha 1 of 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner Versus Shri Dr.K.Venkateshan & Ors. ...Respondents …… Ms.Misbaah Solkar i/b. Mr.Amin Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.G.BISHT, JJ. …… DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2020 P.C.: The learned APP has tendered across the bar a copy of affidavit of Deputy Secretary (In-charge), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai. The same is taken on record. At the request of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, stand over to 11th February, 2020. (V.G.BISHT, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner Versus Dr. K. Venkateshan and Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Misbah Solkar i/by Mr. Amin Solkar for Petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent – State. *** CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & V. G. BISHT, JJ. DATE : 11th FEBRUARY, 2020 PER COURT : Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner for sometime. At her request, stand over to 12th February, 2020. (V.G. BISHT, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2020 Shamim Makhmood Khan ...Petitioner vs. Dr.K. Venkateshan & Ors. ...Respondents Ms.Misbah Solkar i/b Mohd. Amin H. Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh APP for Respondent-State. …… CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.G.BISHT, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2020 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Reserved for judgment for pronouncement of judgment on 21st February, 2020. (V.G.BISHT, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 07 OF 2020 Shamim Makmood Khan Age : 65 years, Occ : Business Resident of A.D. Camp Chowk, 1140, In front of Aaina Majjid, Bhavani Peth, Pune ] ] ] ] ]PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shri. Dr. K. Venkateshan Commissioner of Police Pune City. ] ] ] 2. The State of Maharashtra ] ] ] 3. The Superintendent of Jail Yerwada Central Prison, Pune ] ] ] ] 4. The Secretary, Advisory Board (MPDA), Mantralaya, Mumbai ] ] ]RESPONDENTS Ms. Misbaah Solkar i/by Mr. Amin Solkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & V. G. BISHT, JJ. Reserved on : 12th FEBRUARY 2020 Pronounced on : 21st FEBRUARY 2020 JUDGMENT :- (PER S. S. SHINDE, J) 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner Shamim Makmood Khan, who is the mother of Detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan, has preferred this Petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against the dentenu on 16th October, 2019 by Respondent No. 1 – Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The said detention order has been passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act'). The said detention order has been issued as, according to the Detaining Authority, the Detenu is a Dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is based on two Crimes i.e. C.R. No. 188/2019 occurred on 09.06.2019 registered with Samarth Police Sation, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with 4/25 of the Arms Act read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and another incident i.e. C.R. No. 208/2019 occurred on 11.07.2019 registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 324, 506(2), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', recorded. 3 Though number of grounds have been raised in the present Petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner / Detenu has pressed only five grounds before us i.e. Ground Nos. 'A', 'B', 'C', 'F', and 'O'. Those grounds are reproduced herein below in verbatim:- A. The Petitioner says and submits that the orders annexed and marked at Exhibits "A" and "B" are manifestly erroneous and patently illegal in as much as the same are based in total defiance to the facts of the case, and the said orders also display a complete non-application of mind and is malafide on the part of the Detaining Authority. B. The Petitioner says and submits that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order entailing his detention under the provisions of the said Act. None of the activities of the detenu, as mentioned in the grounds of detention, can be said to be disturbing the maintenance of public order and as such the orders are obviously illegal, bad in law, malafide, unconstitutional and unsustainable. C. The Petitioner says and submits that it is obligatory on the part of the Respondent No. 1 under Section 3 (3) of the said Act to send a REPORT forthwith in respect of the detention, together with the grounds of detention and other particulars to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to furnish details of the exact date on which the proposal and the findings and also the copies of the documents relied upon were placed before him and also the exact date on which he submitted the said report under Section 3(3) to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to furnish the details of the exact date on which the said report was actually received by it. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to state as to what were the documents accompanying the said report and are further called upon to state whether the grounds of detention, as formulated by Respondent No. 1 and the material on which the grounds are based as well as other documents, if any, including the proposal and the findings were forwarded to Respondent No. 2 together with the said report. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to furnish all details about the consideration, if any, of the said report including the date of which such consideration, if any, and the exact date of the approval of the detention order and the exact date of issuance of the order of approval. The Respondent No. 2 is called upon to state whether the approval, if any, was by a person competent and duly authorized under the relevant Rules of Business and/or the Standing Orders issued thereunder, to exercise the power of the State Government under section 3(3) of the said Act. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are called upon to furnish the above information to this Hon'ble Court based on the authentic contemporaneous official records and by due production thereof, before this Hon'ble Court since the documents relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention were not sent along with the order of detention for approval and if at all sent it was only after the order of detention was allegedly passed. If any of the provisions of the Section 3(3) of the said Act are not strictly observed or complied with, the detention and/or continued detention is illegal, unsustainable, unconstitutional, null and void. F. The Respondent No. 1 is bound to produce for the scrutiny of this Hon'ble Court the proposal and the findings for the detenu's detention, relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in formulating the grounds of detention. If the grounds of detention are no more than a repetition of the proposal with minor grammatical and consequential variations, there cannot be a greater proof of non-application of mind. It is well settled that the liberty of a Subject is a serious matter and the same cannot be trifled with any such casual, indifferent and routine manner. The Respondent No. 1 is called upon to state whether before formulating the grounds of detention, he did go through the opinion of different subordinate officers, if any, written on the said proposal. The Respondent No. 1 having gone through the opinion of his subordinate Officers and having been influenced by them in formulating the grounds of detention and in the passing of the detention order, then the said detention order suffers from non-application of mind and is illegal, malafide, unconstitutional, null and void. O. The Petitioner says and submits that the recording of "In-Camera" statements seems to be fabricated and got-up statements in order to put the detenu behind bars under Preventive Detention. The Petitioner says and submits that, even otherwise, the incidents mentioned therein are stale, remote and not proximate in time and, therefore, the order of detention smacks of malafides. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relying upon Grounds A, B, C, F and O submits that there was non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention; there was delay in passing the order of detention; the alleged in-camera statements are fabricated and not properly verified by the Detaining Authority. She further submits that there was delay in submitting the proposal to Mantralaya by the Detaining Authority seeking approval of detention of Detenu. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the following judgments :- 1] Anil vs State of Maharashtra and ors. 1 2] Rashid Shaukat Husain Sayyed @ Jagga vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. 2 and 3] Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar vs S Ramamurthi & ors. 3 1 2000(2) Mh.LJ 400 2 Order Bombay High Court dated 01/03/2018 in Cri.WP No.5284/2017. 3 AIR 1994 SC 656 5 On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State invites attention of this Court to the order of detention so also the grounds and the replies filed by the respective Respondents/Authorities and submits that the Detaining Authority after proper application of mind has passed the impugned order of detention. She further submits that there is no delay in passing the order of detention. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned APP pressed into service the exposition of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Govind Murudkar v/s. R. H. Mendonca & ors. decided on 10/03/2000 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2090 of 1999 (Coram : Vishnu Sahai and P V Kakade, JJ). It is submitted that the Detaining Authority relied upon two crimes i.e. C.R. No. 188/2019 and C.R. No. 208/2019, both registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune, and two in-camera statements while passing the order of detention. It is submitted that in the grounds of detention it is made clear that paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 are referred only for the purpose of showing that the Detenu is a habitual offender and the said grounds/material referred therein have not been considered by the Detaining Authority while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. It is further submitted that the Detaining Authority has specifically stated in his reply that only paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 of the grounds of detention are taken into consideration while passing the order of detention. It is also submitted that the statement of witnesses in-camera are recorded after adhering to the proper procedure and those are verified by the Detaining Authority. She submits that the noting in the original file would make it clear that the Detaining Authority has personally seen those statements. It is submitted that the 2nd in-camera statement was recorded on 10/08/2019 and the detention order has been passed on 16/10/2019, as the proposal was routed through the concerned government authorities, time was consumed in processing the proposal and therefore it cannot be said that there was delay in passing the order of detention against the Detenu. The learned APP invites attention of this Court to the specific averments made in the reply filed by Respondent-1 i.e. the Detaining Authority so also the reply filed by the Sponsoring Authority, and submits that the contentions raised in Ground Nos. A, B, C, F and O are specifically dealt with and replied and therefore there is no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was nonapplication of mind by the Detaining Authority or there was delay in passing the order of detention or that in-camera statements are fabricated. It is submitted that the ground of delay in passing the order of detention has not been specifically raised by the Petitioner in the Petition and therefore the said ground orally agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner may be kept out of consideration. In support of the aforesaid contentions the learned APP relied upon following judgments :- 1] Hemlata K Shah vs State of Maharashtra and anr 4 and 2] Hetchin Haokip vs State of Manipur & ors. 5 4 (9181) 4 SCC 647 5 (2018) 9 SCC 562 6 We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions. With the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State, we have carefully perused pleadings in the Petition and specifically the grounds A, B, C, F and O raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 7 It is true that in the grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has stated that the offences registered against the Detenu mentioned in Paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 are considered only for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that the Detenu even in past indulged in the similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Upon careful perusal of the reply filed by Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority, in paragraph 8 thereof it is stated that Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority has carefully gone through the material placed before him and he has subjectively satisfied that, the Detenu is a weapon-wielding dangerous desperado of violent character, indulging in terrorizing activities and since 2014 the Detenu is engaged in criminal activities, and the criminal activities of the Detenu have created a reign of terror in the minds of people. It is further stated that the Detenu and his accomplices move, armed with deadly weapons such as Koyata, knife, wooden stick and sword and do not hesitate to use the same while committing the offences such a robbery, hurt etc. Furthermore, in the said paragraph it is stated that the Detenu also does not hesitate to use these deadly weapons for threatening the peace loving public residing with the jurisdiction of Samarth, Wanawadi and Lashkar Police Stations, Pune City. 8 It is next stated that the Detenu has been habitually committing offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code as well as under Chapter V of the Arms Act and thus the Detenu is a dangerous person as defined in Section 2(b-1) of the said Act. The criminal activities of the Detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detenu has thereby became dangerous to the lives and properties of people residing and carrying out their daily activities and vocations in the jurisdiction of Samarth, Wanawadi and Lashkar Police Stations in Pune City. There are 6 offences registered against the Detenu at Lashkar, Wanawadi and Samarth Police Stations in Pune City in addition to the two offences committed during past 6 months and that the dangerous criminal activities of the Detenu are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is further stated that in order to curb the criminal activities of the Detenu, preventive actions under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Section 3(2) of MPDA were taken against him but the same had no deterrent effect on the Detenu. It is further stated that the Senior Inspector of Police, Samarth Police Station i.e. the Sponsoring Authority conducted a confidential enquiry of the criminal activities of the Detenu and his associates, and during the confidential enquiry the Sponsoring Authority recorded in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B" on 02/08/2019 and 10/08/2019. It is also stated that the incidents recorded in the in-camera statements also show that criminal activities of the Detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Lastly in paragraph 8, the Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority, has stated thus :- "after considering in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. Cr No.188/2019 and CR No.208/2019 and the documents placed before me by Sponsoring Authority, after perusing the said record, I was subjectively satisfied and after application of mind, I have passed the order of detention of the Detenu. As such the said order is legal, just and proper and as per the provisions of law and deserves to be confirmed." 9 In paragraph 9 of the reply Respondent No.1-Detaining Authority has stated thus :- "It is submitted that after my subjective satisfaction that the offences I considered for passing the Order of Detention are disturbing the public order and it is required to detain the detenu, I passed the order of detention under section 3(2) of MPDA Act 1981. It is further submitted that I being the Detaining Authority have passed the order of detention on the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1 and 6.2. As such in the said paragraph Nos.5.1, 5.2 particulars of offences mentioned, for passing order of detention." 10 The aforesaid averments would make it clear that while arriving at subjective satisfaction, the Detaining Authority has not only confined his application of mind to the two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. C R No.188/2019 and C.R. No.208/2019, but also the documents placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority. It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to confine his application of mind to the two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. C R No.188/2019 and C.R. No.208/2019 as has been stated in the grounds of detention while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. However, it appears that the Detaining Authority has relied upon paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 in which particulars of past offences are mentioned, and the material referred in the said paragraphs have been considered by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. 11 The offences i.e. CR No.188/2019 under Sections 392, 506(2) of the IPC r/w Section 37(1)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act r/w Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act r/w Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and CR No.208/2019 under Section 394, 324, 506(2), 34 of the IPC have been registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune City, however, it is apparent from the averments made in the affidavit in reply of Respondent No.1 i.e. the Detaining Authority that the Detaining Authority has considered the other offences registered with other two police stations i.e. Wanawadi Police Station and Lashkar Police Station, Pune City while passing the order of detention. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Detaining Authority has not considered the other crimes registered with other two police stations while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. 12 Though it is vehemently submitted by the learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State that there was no delay in passing the order of detention, nevertheless, from the reply filed by Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority it is clear that the Sponsoring Authority sent proposal of the detention of Detenu on 14/08/2019 to ACP Faraskhana Division, Pune, who after verifying the truthfulness and genuineness of the statements of witnesses sent the said proposal to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone I, Pune City. The said Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police forwarded the said proposal to the Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune on 03/10/2019. The Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region has scrutinized the proposal and forwarded it to the Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB) Pune on 12/10/2019. The Police Inspector, Crime Branch (PCB) sent the said proposal to the DCP Crime Pune on 12/10/2019. The DCP Crime Pune forwarded it to the Additional Commissioner of Police Crime, Pune on 13/10/2019. Thereafter Additional Commissioner of Police Crime, Pune has scrutinized the proposal and submitted to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Pune on 14/10/2019. The Joint Commissioner of Police further scrutinized the said proposal and sent it to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Pune i.e. the Detaining Authority. Even if the time is reckoned from 14/08/2019 i.e. the date on which Sponsoring Authority sent the proposal to the ACP Faraskhana Division, Pune till 03/10/2019 i.e. the date on which Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I Pune sent the said proposal to the Additional Commissioner, South Region, Pune, more than 45 days time was taken by the authorities in perusing and scrutinizing the said proposal. Not only that, the Additional Commissioner of Police West Region, Pune has forwarded it to Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB), Pune on 12/10/2019. It is therefore clear that the Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region had also taken about 9 days time in forwarding the said proposal to the Police Inspector Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB), Pune. No plausible explanation has been offered by the Respondents Authorities as to why the proposal was kept pending by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone I, Pune City for a considerable period and then sent it to Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune on 03/10/2019 and as to why Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region, took 9 days time in scrutinizing and forwarding the proposal to Police Inspector, PCB Crime Branch, Pune. 13 In paragraph 9 of Pradeep Paturkar's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus :- "The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case." 14 In the facts of the present case, as observed herein above, delay in forwarding the said proposal by the DCP, Zone I Pune to the Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Pune remains unexplained, so also the further delay in forwarding the said proposal by the Commissioner of Police, West Region, Pune to Police Inspector, Preventive of Crime Branch (PCB) also remains unexplained. So far as the said delay is concerned, there is no satisfactory or plausible explanation offered by Respondent No.1-Detaining Authority. Therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar (Supra), and since no plausible explanation has been offered for delay in passing the order of detention, it will have to be held that there was delay in passing the order of detention. 15 It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that relying upon 6 offences, which were registered against the Detenu in the past, the order of an externment was passed against the Detenu externing him from certain areas, and therefore relying upon the said past offences while passing the order of detention would amount to violation of mandate of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under :- "Art.20 (1)……. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3)…………." As already observed, the Detaining Authority in his reply stated that he has considered two in-camera statements and two CRs i.e. CR No.188/2019 and CR No.208/2019 and also the offences mentioned in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the grounds of order of detention, while arriving at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. In that view of the matter, if the earlier offences are considered while passing the impugned order of detention, the Respondents Authorities were obliged to state proximity and live link between present proceedings for detention and those earlier offences registered against the detenu. 16 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs an irresistible conclusion is that the order of detention impugned in this Writ Petition cannot be legally sustained, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence the following order is passed :- ORDER A] The impugned order of detention bearing No. PCB/DET/3405/2019 dated 16/10/2019 issued under Section 3(2) of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 by Respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. B] The Detenu Firoj @ Babbali Maqbul Khan be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. C] The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (V. G. BISHT, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) Laxmikant Digitally signed by Laxmikant G. Chandan G. Chandan Date: 2020.02.21 11:43:27 +0530

Order - Status 7: 1 1p.aba173.143.15.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 173 OF 2015 Shekhar Bhagwanrao Gore .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Arvind Gyanchand Bansal and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 129 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Arvind Gyanchand Bansal and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2015 Rakesh Tikaram Vishwakarma and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 128 OF 2015 IN Talwalkar 1/3 2 1p.aba173.143.15.sxw CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Rakesh Tikaram Vishwakarma and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2015 A. Parthiban and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN A. Parthiban and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Smt. Shubhangi Sandip Yadav. ….Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ….Respondent. ….. Talwalkar 2/3 Mr. Prashant Patil, advocate for Applicant in ABA 173 of 2015. Ms. Veera Shinde APP for the State. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, advocate for applicant in APPP 41/16 in ABA 143/15. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 P.C.: 1 Not on board. Upon production taken on board. 2 This is for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 26/2/2015. In second line of paragraph5 of the order, the name "Sandeep mane" be read as "Sandip Uttam Yadav". Corrections be carried out accordingly. 3 In view of the above order correcting the order dated 26/2/2015, the Criminal Application No. 41 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J) Talwalkar 3/3

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan and Another ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2022.07.02 14:36:03 +0530 VISHAL SUBHASH Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w. Ms. Namita Maneshinde, for the Applicants. Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashwin Shete, Ms. Priyanka Dage i/b. Jayakar and Partner, for the Intervener. Mrs. J.S. Lohkare, APP, for the State. Mr. Harish Thakur, API, Bundgarden police station, Pune present. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : JULY 01, 2022 P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, list on 13th July, 2022 for hearing. In the meanwhile, interim protection granted earlier, if any, shall continue to operate. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan and another … Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2022 Aman Nandlal Gupta … Applicant (Intervenor) In the matter between: Krishna Ramanathan and another … Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 ---- Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w. Mr. Anandini Fernandes and Ms. Namita Maneshinde for Applicants. Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashwin Shete, Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal, Mr. Priyank Daga i/b. Jayakar and Partners for Intervenor. Ms. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 P.C. : After having heard for some time, it is noticed that this Court has granted ad-interim protection to the applicants vide order dated 12.04.2022. At the relevant time, submissions were canvassed on behalf of the applicants that, without prejudice and without admitting the liability, way back in March 2019, the applicants had shown willingness to repay the amount invested by the complainant. In the aforesaid background, this Court in paragraph 10 of the said order directed counsel for the applicants to make a specific statement on instructions whether the applicants in order to show bonafides can make deposit of certain amount before this Court by the next date. Today, during the course of hearing, counsel for the applicants, on instructions, makes a categorical statement that amount of Rs.1 crore will be deposited in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Statement accepted. As far as further deposits to be made by the applicants, an appropriate order shall be passed after hearing the rival claims. Learned APP has invited my attention to the notice dated 07.09.2022 issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to M/s. Curatio Health Care (I) Private Limited of which applicant No.1 is one of the Directors. It is claimed by APP that the said applicant has not co-operated in the investigation pursuant to the said notice. Mr. Maneshinde, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants had every intention to co-operate. However, it is claimed that the the applicants have always supplied and are willing to supply relevant information in relation to the offence in question. He states that applicants have reservation that such information supplied by them will be made available to the complainant by the investigating agency as according to him the aforesaid notice issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was within the knowledge of the complainant. Be that as it may, in view of the assurance given by Mr.Maneshinde that the notices issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. will be honoured in its true letter and spirit, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the applicants to appear before the investigating officer from 10th to 15th October, 2022 between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon and thereafter as and when directed by the investigating officer. Matter to come up for further consideration on 19.10.2022. Ad-interim order to continue till then. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 981 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan And Anr ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1678 OF 2022 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 981 OF 2022 Aman Nandlal Gupta ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 6th January, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/01/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )