Tag: Criminal Others

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 )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT A/W IA/222/2023 IN ABA/3248/2022. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 24th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 28/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Manager ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK J DATE : 13th April, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Manager ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT Mr. Nilesh Navale for Applicant in ABA/3161/2022 Mr. Chirag Chanani for applicant in ABA/3248/2022 Mr. Chintan Y. Shah for Applicant in IA/223/2023, IA/222/2023 Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK J DATE : 12th June, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 03/07/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Manager ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil Through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT Nilesh Navale for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK J DATE : 3rd July, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil through Authorized Representative I T Mangar Applicant / Intervenor In the matter between Safia Akhtar Shaikh Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil through Authorized Representative I T Mangar ..Applicant / Intervenor In the matter between Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms. Ilsa Shaikh i/b. Nilesh Navale, for the Applicant in ABA/3161/2022. Mr. Shyam Dewani a/w. Sachet Makhija i/b. Chirag Chanani, for the Applicant in ABA/3248/2022 (through VC). Mr. Chintan Shah, for the Intervenor in both ABAs. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : R. N. LADDHA, J. DATE : 21 JUNE 2024 P.C. . By consent, stand over to 15 July 2024. Interim protection granted earlier, if any, shall continue to operate till the next date. R. N. LADDHA, J.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil ... Applicant In the matter between Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil ... Applicant In the matter between Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant Page 1 of 2 _______________________________________________ 15 July 2024 Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2024.07.15 14:45:00 +0530 SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES WITH v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr Nilesh Navale, a/w. Mr Somnath Kale, for the Applicant in ABA/3161/2022. …. Mr Shyam Dewani, a/w. Mr Sachet Makhija, i/b. Chirag Chanani, for the Applicant in ABA/3248/2022 (through VC). …. Mr Chintan Shah, for the Intervenor in both ABAs. Mr Yogesh Y Dabake, APP, for Respondent State. Coram : R.N. Laddha, J. Date : 15 July 2024 P.C. : . The learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP jointly seek an adjournment. At their request, stand over to 5 August 2024. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (R.N. Laddha, J.) Page 2 of 2 _______________________________________________ 15 July 2024

Order - Status 20: Chitra Sonawane 16-ABA-3161-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.3161 of 2022 With Interim Application No.223 of 2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3161 of 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. With Anticipatory Bail Application No.3248 of 2022 With Interim Application No.222 of 2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3248 of 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ••• Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ••• Respondent. Mr Nilesh Navale for the applicant in ABA 3161 of 2022. Mr Shyam Dewani i/by Chirag Chanani for applicant in ABA No.324/2022. Mr Sandesh Patil i/by Chintan Patil for the intervenor in ABA No.3161 of 2022. Mr Sandesh Patil i/by Divya Pawar for intervenor in ABA No.3248/2022. Mr Yogesh Dabake, APP (through VC) for the State. Page No. 1 of 2 5 August 2024. Chitra Sonawane 16-ABA-3161-2022.doc Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 5 August 2024. P.C. : At the request of learned APP, stand over to 6 August 2024. Interim relief granted earlier, shall continue to operate till the next date. [ R. N. Laddha,J. ] Page No. 2 of 2 5 August 2024.

Order - Status 24: sg 931.aba3161-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3161 OF 2022 Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3161 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil ... Applicant In the matter between Safia Akhtar Shaikh ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2022 Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2022 Akshay Chandrakant Patil ... Applicant In the matter between Mustafa Ismail Dandekar ... Applicant Page 1 of 3 7 August 2024 v/s. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent …. Mr Nilesh Navale, for the Applicant in ABA/3161/2022. Mr Shyam Dewani, i/b. Chirag Chanani, for the Applicant in ABA/3248/2022 (through VC). Mr Sandesh Patil, i/b. Mr Chintan Shah, for the Intervenor in ABA/3161/2022. Mr Sandesh Patil, i/b. Ms Divya Pawar, for the Intervenor in ABA/3248/2022. Mr Yogesh Y Dabake, APP, for Respondent State (through VC). …. Coram : R.N. Laddha, J. Date : 7 August 2024 P.C. : Interim Application No.223 of 2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3161 of 2022 And Interim Application No.222 of 2023 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3248 of 2022 . Heard. For the reasons stated in the applications and no objection from other side, the interim applications are allowed. Interim applications stand disposed of accordingly. Page 2 of 3 7 August 2024 . By consent, stand over to 2 September 2024. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (R.N. Laddha, J.) Page 3 of 3 7 August 2024

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.280 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.187 OF 2016 Nehal Ahmed Khan ...Applicant Versus Shamim Ahmed Siddiqui & Anr. ...Respondents None for the Applicant. Mr. K.V.Shafruddin, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs. P.P.Shinde , A.P.P for the Respondent-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 14th JUNE, 2016 P.C. : 1 None for the Applicant. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the postdated cheque given by the Applicant is dated 1.7.2016. He, therefore, requests that the aforesaid application be adjourned to 11.7.2016 to ensure that the same is hounoured. Hence, stand over to 11.7.2016. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1900 OF 2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2021 Deepak Madhvan ...Applicant Versus Wilson Charles Wakde and Anr. ...Respondents None for the Applicant. Mr. S.V.Gavand, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 3rd AUGUST, 2021 P.C. : None appears for the applicant. Stand over to 4th August, 2021. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 6: 27-IA-1900-2021.doc SHAGUFTA Q PATHAN Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA Q PATHAN Date: 2021.08.06 11:05:19 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1900 OF 2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2021 Deepak Madhvan ...Applicant Versus Wilson Charles Wakde & Anr. ...Respondents None for the Applicant None for the Respondent No. 1 Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2–State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. WEDNESDAY, 4th AUGUST 2021 P.C. : 1 None appeared for the applicant at the first as well as at the second call. Stand over to 11th August 2021. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 8: RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date: 2021.08.12 16:54:57 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1900 OF 2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2021 Deepak Madhvan ...Applicant Versus Wilson Charles Wakde State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr. P.V.Satam i/b Mr. Vikas Mishra for the Applicant. Mr. A.R.Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2021 P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant. By this applicant, the Applicant seeks suspension of his sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his Revision Application. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Respondent No.2 (Original Complainant) had filed a complaint as against the Applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the year 2003. He submits that the amount involved in the dishonour of cheques was Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that during the pendency of the case filed by the Respondent No.2 (Original Complainant), the Applicant handed over a piece of land by a Sale Deed to the Respondent No.2 in the year 2006. He submits that there is evidence on record to show that the said transfer was in lieu of the dishonour of cheques. He submits that even otherwise, the Applicant has without prejudice deposited Rs.1,50,000/- in the Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Court during the pendency of his appeal. The Applicant was on bail pending trial as well as in the Appellate Court. Having perused the evidence, the Applicant has made out a case for suspension of his sentence and enlargement of bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his aforesaid Revision Application. Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the Applicant's sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his appeal, on the following terms and conditions :- ORDER i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; ii) The Applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in six months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till his Revision Application is finally disposed of; iii) The Applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of his current address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time; Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that he will not file any application seeking withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Applicant, in the Appellate Court. Statement Accepted. The application is accordingly disposed of. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2021 Pagur Yogesh Desai … Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr.Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Mr.Vikram Sutaria for Appellant. Mr.S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 22nd January 2021. P.C. : This is an Appeal under Section 14A of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short, "the S.C. & S.T. Act ). The appellant is apprehending arrest in CR No.77 of 2018 dated 01/12/2018 registered with Pali Police Station, Raigad for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) F of the S.C. & S.T. Act. Issue notice to the respondent No.2, returnable on 22nd February 2021. In addition to Court notice, the appellant is also permitted to serve the respondent No.2 through private notice and after the said respondent No.2 is duly served, to file an affidavit-of-service in the Registry 1/2 osk 8-Cri Appeal-54-2021.odt before the next date. Perusal of documents annexed to the appeal indicates that, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1731 of 2019 preferred by the appellant herein against the Judgment and Order dated 5th February 2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, a closure report was filed by the Investigating Officer and accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Petition. Learned A.P.P. seeks time to take instructions. In view of the above, as and by way of interim relief, till the next date appellant is protected by pre-arrest bail. Hence, following order :- (i) In the event of arrest in CR No.77 of 2018 dated 01/12/2018 registered with Pali Police Station, Raigad, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, with one or two local sureties in the like amount. (ii) Appellant shall not tamper with the evidence and/ or interfere with the process of investigation. (iii) All the concerned to act on the basis of the authenticated copy of this Order. Stand over to 22nd February 2021.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2021 Pagur Yogesh Desai ….Appellant. Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/by V.R. Sutaria for the Appellant. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Chintaman Shankar Pawar, Respondent No.2 present in person. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C.:- Respondent No.2 is personally present in Court and through the learned APP submitted that, he intends to appoint an Advocate to represent him. At his request, stand over to 10th March, 2021. Interim relief granted earlier, to continue till the next date. (A.S. GADKARI, J.) Sanjiv S. Mashalkar Digitally signed by Sanjiv S. Mashalkar Date: 2021.02.23 18:19:06 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2021 Pagur Yogesh Desai ....APPELLANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI J DATE : 10th March, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 09/04/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2021 …...... …...... Pagur Yogesh Desai …Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Vikram R. Sutaria for the Appellant. Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the State. Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for Respondent No.2. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 19 SEPTEMBER 2022. P.C. :- This appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("SCST Act" for short) against an order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon District-Raigad dated 19 December 2018 in Criminal Bail Application No. 238 of 2018. By the order impugned, the trial Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the present appellant, who is accused in C.R. No. 77 of 2018 registered at Pali Police Station, Raigad for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. On 22 January 2021, this Court passed the following order: "This is an Appeal under Section 14A of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short, "the S.C.& S.T. Act ). The appellant is apprehending arrest in CR No.77 of 2018 dated 01/12/2018 registered with Pali Police Station, Raigad for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) F of the S.C. & S.T. Act. Issue notice to the respondent No.2, returnable on 22nd February 2021. In addition to Court notice, the appellant is also permitted to serve the respondent No.2 through private notice and after the said respondent No.2 is duly served, to file an affidavit-of-service in the Registry before the next date. Perusal of documents annexed to the appeal indicates that, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1731 of 2019 preferred by the appellant herein against the Judgment and Order dated 5th February 2019passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, a closure report was filed by the Investigating Officer and accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Petition. Learned A.P.P. seeks time to take instructions. In view of the above, as and by way of interim relief, till the next date appellant is protected by prearrest bail. Hence, following order :- In the event of arrest in CR No.77 of 2018 $(i)$ dated 01/12/2018 registered with Pali Police Station, Raigad, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-,with one or two local sureties in the like amount. Appellant shall not tamper with the evidence $(ii)$ and/or interfere with the process of investigation. All the concerned to act on the basis of the $(iii)$ authenticated copy of this Order. Stand over to 22 nd February 2021. " 6. $4.$ The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, the State has filed the charge sheet. In view of the filing of charge sheet, instead of entertaining the $5.$ present appeal it would be appropriate to direct the appellants to file regular bail application before the competent Court and to continue the order passed by this Court dated 22 January 2021 till the decision of the competent Court in the application for regular bail. The Appellants are directed to file application for regular bail 6. within a period of three weeks from today. If such bail application is filed, the concerned Court shall decide it on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed by this Court dated 22 January 2021. The interim anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by order dated 22 January2021 shall continue to operate till the decision of the competent Court in the application for regular bail. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Needless to mention that the concerned Court before passing an order on regular bail application of appellants, shall grant an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 2. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. )

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.819 OF 2016 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.744 OF 2016 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.743 OF 2016 Sudeep Kumar Ramani Bhusanprasad ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2016 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.819 OF 2016 Aditya S. Sawant ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ..... Mr.Prashant Raut i/b. S.P.Kadam, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Dhanraj Vanjari, Advocate for the Intervenor. Mrs.Rutuja Ambekar and Mr.S.H.Yadav, APP for the Respondent/State. .... CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH J. DATED : 13th JULY 2016. P.C. 1 Learned counsel for the applicant states that on the earlier date on 07/07/2016 matter was in fact by consent adjourned to 20/07/2016. Order dated 07/07/2016 reveals that mater is adjourned till today. However, since request is made by learned counsel for both sides for grant of adjournment, by consent stand over to 22nd July 2016 . 2 Adinterim relief to continue till adjourned date. 3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that in spite of directions applicant is not marking his presence with Investigating Officer in V.P.Road Police Station on Thursday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. The learned counsel for the applicant states that as applicant was arrested in some other crime in Hyderabad, he could not comply with the condition and states that since he is released on bail in that crime, shall continue to comply with the order. 4 Applicant is accordingly directed to attend Investigating Officer on 14th July 2016 and shall continue to attend to V.P.Road Police station between 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m., to L.T.Marg Police Station between 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. and to Nagpada Police Station between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on each Friday until further order. (P. N. DESHMUKH J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 399 OF 2016 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 819 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel a/w S.P. Kadam for applicant in Anticipatory Bail Applications. Mr. Deepak Thakare, APP for the State. Mr.A.A. Naik, for Intervener. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 21st September 2016. P.C.: This is an application for intervention by the original complainant-Aditya Sawant in CR No.8 of 2016 registered with Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The learned counsel for the applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.819 of 2016 is hereby directed to implead the original complainant as respondent No.2. The amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today and the amended copy of the application be served upon the learned counsel for the original complainant. Criminal Application No.399 of 2016 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. then. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.323 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2016 Sunil Yashwant Mhatre Applicant versus Satyawan Rama Gawandi and another Respondents Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12th January 2018 PC :­ Issue notice to respondent no.1 returnable on 2th February 2018. Private notice is permitted. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)