All Bail Application

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 7th June, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 04/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 4th July, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 29/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 22nd August, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned.Stand over to 16/09/2019. Ad-interim relief 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 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 16th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 09/10/2019 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 9th October, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 15/11/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 15th November, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/12/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1482 OF 2019 Roshan Sunil Pawar .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …... …... Mr.Silvin Y. Kale, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.A.A. Takalkar, APP APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2019. P.C. : The applicants in both the applications were arrested in connection with C.R.No.I–291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the ofence punishable under Section 302j read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 30th June, 2018, the victim/complainant was waiting at rickshaw stand. Accused Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde spoke to the victim and told him that he want to travel at Karanjade and the fare was fied at Rs.60/-. He boarded rickshaw. The victim dropped him at Karanjade. He paid Rs.50/- towards the fare although it was fied to be Rs.60/-. The victim demanded the balance amount. Accused Avi alias Ajinkya told him that he is associate of Rajesh Kaikadia and slapped him. The victim also slapped him. Thereafter, the victim went towards Panvel railway station and was waiting at rickshaw stand. At about 22:30 hrs., he went for smoking cigarette. Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde came and questioned him as to why he charges heavy fare and left the place. After some time, Ajinkya Shinde, Babu Kaikadia and two other persons approached the victim. Ajinkya Shinde assaulted him with iron rod in his head. As a result the victim fell down. Babu Kaikadia assaulted by knife and two other persons assaulted the victim by fst blows. Babu Kaikadia then assaulted him on head. The mother and wife of the victim reached the spot. Babu Kaikadia also assaulted his mother and all of them fled away from the place of incident. The victim was taken to the hospital. His statement was recorded, which was treated as First Information Report. Subsequently, victim succumbed to the injuries and charge under Section 302 of IPC was invoked. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant appearing for both the applicants submitted that there are major discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses. There are contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses. Applicants are falsely implicated,. There is no evidence against the applicant Roshan Pawar, the eye witnesses have given contradictory versions about the role played by him. Although, the applicant was identifed, subsequent to identifcation, diferent role is attributed to the said applicant. The version of both the eye witnesses were contradictory to each other. The applicants are in custody from the date of arrest and further detention is not necessary. Co-accused Iqbal Abdul Kadir Shaha has been granted bail by this Court. 4 Learned APP submitted that the role has been assigned to both the applicants. Applicant Avinash had picked up quarrel with the deceased. Thereafter, he came along with other accused and the victim was assaulted by weapons. The applicants are identifed by the eye witnesses. Thus, there is suficient evidence against the applicant and bail may not be granted. 5 Having heard both the sides. I have perused the charge–sheet. The frst informant is the victim of the crime. He has stated that accused Avi alias Ajinkya had quarreled with him. Subsequently, he came along with the other accused. In the frst information report, it is stated that Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde had assaulted the victim on his head by iron rod and Babu Kaikadia had assaulted by knife. Two unknown persons had allegedly caught hold of the victim. Thus, the role of assault is attributed to Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde and Babu Kaikadia. During the course of investigation, statement of Naziya and Sherbano were recorded. Naziya had stated in a statement under Section 164 that the victim was assaulted by Avi alias Ajinkya and others. Avi alias Ajinkya was holding iron rod and the other short person was holding knife. The victim was assaulted by iron rod on his head and the other person had assaulted by knife. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which is in consonance with her earlier statement. Thus, the said witness categorically stated that Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde had assaulted the victim by iron rod on his head and other persons assaulted by knife. Statement of Sherbano was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She has stated that accused Avi alias Ajinkya and others had assaulted the victim. The identifcation parade was conducted. In the parade Naziya has identifed accused Roshan Pawar and stated that Roshan Pawar had assaulted victim by knife. The other witness Ayesha has also identifed Roshan Pawar and during the identifcation stated that he had assaulted the victim by fst blows. Thus, apparently, there are discrepancies in the evidence with regards to the role played by Roshan Pawar in the FIR, statement of eye witnesses and the identifcation parade. However, as far as Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde, is concerned, specifc overtact has been attributed to him. There is consistency in the evidence of witnesses. He was the cause of quarrel and incident of murder. The victim as well as other witnesses have attributed him role of assault. In this circumstances, applicant Roshan Pawar can be granted bail, however, applicant Ajinkya @ Avinash Shinde is not entitled for bail. 7 Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: (i) Bail Application No.1482 of 2019, is allowed and disposed of; (ii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.I– 291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police Station, Navi Mumbai, on his eiecuting P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, shall attend the concerned police station once in a month on frst Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial; (iv) Bail Application No.1483 of 2019, is rejected. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2386 OF 2021 Vishal Mangesh Yadav .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent … … Mr. N.M. Nadar h/f. Mr. S.V. Marwadi for the Applicant. Ms. A.A. Takalkar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. P.C:- At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant, list the matter on 06/10/2021. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2386 OF 2021 Vishal Mangesh Yadav APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2022 . 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 APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2386 OF 2021 Vishal Mangesh Yadav APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 13th December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 05/01/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: PMB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2386 OF 2021 PRADNYA MAKARAND BHOGALE signed by PRADNYA MAKARAND BHOGALE Date: 2023.01.05 17:10:30 +0530 Digitally VISHAL MANGESH YADAV ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ None for the applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State. Mr. Vaibhav Pawar, PSI, Nalasopara Police Station is present. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2023. P.C. : 1. None appears for the applicant. 2. Only by way of an indulgence, list the matter on 06/01/2023. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2386 OF 2021 VISHAL MANGESH YADAV ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ Adv. Veerdhaval Kakade i/b Adv. Mrunal Jadhav for the applicant. Ms. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State. ------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 6, 2023. P.C. : 1. Considering the applicant is in custody for more than 4 years and 6 months, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. I am informed that the charge has now been framed. 2. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application. The application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. 3. In case the trial does not substantially proceed, liberty to file a fresh application after 6 months. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 27th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 6th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 26/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1267 OF 2017 Kishore Vishwanath Prajapati Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr Respondent Y.R.Mishra i/by Lokegaonkar Upendra Anant For Applicant Deepali Pathak i/by Purnima H Kantharia Respondent No.2 H.M.Pethe, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 20th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand Over to 02/08/2017. Supplementary Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

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

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

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 8: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 9: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 12: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 16: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 18: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 21: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 22: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 23: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 26: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 28: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 30: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 32: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 35: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 37: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrudula Kiran Surve Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent. Ms. Chetna Karande a/w Parth S. i/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates for the Applicant. Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for the RespondentState. S.R. Phanse, for the intervenor. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 29th JUNE, 2018. P.C.: The learned counsel for the Applicant is directed to annex the copy of the charge sheet to the present Application. By an Order of today's date passed in Criminal Application No. 724 of 2018, the first informant Smt. Kusum Kulchandra has been directed to be added as Respondent No.2. Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks from today and an amended copy of the Application be served upon the concerned within the same stipulated period. 2 Stand over to 23rd July 2018. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrudula Kiran Surve ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Sonal Parab i/by Rajeev Sawant And Associates For Applicant A.A.Palkar, APP for state. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 30th July, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 31/07/2018 after ABA board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrudula Kiran Surve ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Smt.Sonal Parab i/by Rajeev Sawant And Associates For Applicant Smt.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 31st July, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant , Stand over to 02/08/2018, after ABA Board over. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrudula Kiran Surve ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mrs.Sonal Parab i/by Rajeev Sawant And Associates For Applicant Smt.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 2nd August, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 03/08/2018. After ABA Board Over. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1249 OF 2018 Mrs. Mrudula Kiran Surve …. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents. Smt. Sonal Parab, Advocate I/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates for the Applicant. Smt. Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for the RespondentState. Mr. S. R.Phanse, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Ghosalkar, Police Inspector, Boriwali, present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 3rd August, 2018. P.C.: This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail in CR No. 636 of 2017 dated 25/10/2017 registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel appearing for the first informant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the record of investigation. Prosecution case in brief, is that, the coaccused Kiran Shankar Hidulkar, by making false representation to the informant that he will give her a job in the Reserve Bank of India, accepted approximately Rs.41,80,475/and thereafter neither gave job nor returned the said amount. During the course of investigation, the applicant came to be arrested on 25th October, 2017. After completion of investigation, the police have submitted the chargesheet. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that without entering into the merits of the matter, the applicant, with a view to prove her bona fide and without prejudice to her rights and contentions, is ready and willing to deposit the alleged defalcated amount of Rs.41,80,475/in the Registry of this Court within stipulated period. She further submitted that, as a matter of fact, an amount of Rs.3,25,000/ has already been transferred by the applicant by way of R.T.G.S. and the balance amount would be Rs.38,55,475/. She, on instructions, further submitted that, the father of the applicant namely Mr. Kiran Ganpat Surve has shown his willingness to deposit the said balance Rs.38,55,475/ in the Registry of this Court within stipulated period. She tendered across the Bar, an Affidavitcum-Undertaking of said Mr. Kiran Surve dated 1st August, 2018. The said affidavit is duly affirmed before a Notary Public and the signature of the affiant has been duly verified by Kiran Varma. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Undertakings mentioned in the said affidavit are accepted as Undertaking given to this Court. In the said Affidavit cum Undertaking, the said Mr. Kiran Surve has stated that, he will deposit a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on behalf of the applicant within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the present order and the balance amount will be deposited in two equal instalments of Rs.11,77,737/and last instalment will be paid on or before 2nd February, 2019. The said statements are accepted. It is made clear that, the period to deposit of the said balance amount shall not be extended hereinafter on any count. It is further made clear that if the said Mr. Kiran Surve commits default in making the said payment on or before stipulated dates, bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled, without further reference to this Court. In view of the above, the applicant can be released on bail. Hence, the following order. a) The applicant be released on bail in CR No. 636 of 2017 dated 25/10/2017 registered with Borivali 3/4 Police Station, Mumbai, on her furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount. b) After her release from jail, the Applicant shall attend Borivali Police Station every first Monday of the month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. c) The applicant shall attend all the dates before the Trial Court. Unless precluded for medical reasons. d) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or pressurize the prosecution witnesses. Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari … Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for Applicant. Mrs. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for State. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 18 JANUARY 2024 P.C. None present for the Applicant. Learned APP makes a grievance that copy of the application has not been served on the Respondent-State. Learned Counsel for the Applicant shall serve copy of the application on the Respondent within one week. Stand over to 29 February 2024. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR J DATE : 29th February, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 18/04/2024 . 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 APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR J DATE : 18th April, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/06/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 10th June, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 26/06/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 26th June, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 25/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 25th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 21/08/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Adv. Afreen Shaikh for Applicant. ( Mentioned out of turn at. 2.30 p.m ) Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, APP for State-Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 21st August, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 23/09/2024 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 23rd September, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 11/10/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2442 OF 2024 Ahmed Abdul Kadir Ansari CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2442 OF 2024 Applicant Ahmed Abdul Kadir Ansari Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari versus WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2024 Applicant Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari … Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mrs. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, APP for State. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 1 OCTOBER 2024 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Post on 4 October 2024 for passing orders. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

Order - Status 22: Santosh Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2024.10.04 19:55:25 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2442 OF 2024 Ahmed Abdul Kadir Ansari Versus ...Applicant The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainul Abdul Kadir Ansari Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Ankush Dhokale, for the Applicant in BA/2442/2024. Ms. Afreen Shaikh, for the Applicant in BA/241/2024. Smt. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, APP for the State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : $4^{text{th}}$ OCTOBER, 2024 ORDER:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants, who are arraigned in CR No.522 of 2021, registered with Mankhurd Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, have preferred these applications to enlarge them on bail. 3. Mohd. Hussain, the younger son of the first informant, had been to the mobile repair shop of Jainul Ansari (A1 - the 2-BA2442-2024+.DOC applicant in BA/241/2024). An altercation ensued with Ahmed Ansari (A2); (the applicant in BA/2442/2024), the brother of Jainul (A1), over replacing the display of the mobile phone handset. Jainul (A1) and Ahmed (A2) allegedly assaulted the Mohd. Hussain. The latter called the first informant. While the first informant was trying to defuse the situation and resolve the quarrel, her elder son Akbar (the deceased) came thereat on Activa Scooter. As the deceased questioned Jainul (A1) and Ahmed (A2) as to why Mohd. Hussain was assaulted, an altercation and fisticuffs ensued between the deceased and Jainul (A1). The latter allegedly picked up an iron rod and gave a blow on the chest of the deceased. While the deceased was trying to escape from the clutches of the accused by the Activa Scooter, Sarfraj (A3) and Irshad Hussain (A4) friends of Jainul (A1), accosted him. Irshad Hussain (A4) allegedly removed the key of the Scooter. Thereafter, applicant Ahmed (A2) gave a blow by means of knife on the thigh of the deceased. There was profuse bleeding and eventually the deceased succumbed to those injuries. Mr. Ankush Dhokale, the learned Counsel for Ahmed (A2) the applicant in BA/2442/2024, submitted that the incident 2-BA2442-2024+.DOC had occurred at the spur of the moment. Initial altercation was between the applicant and Mohd. Hussain. There was no premeditation. The applicant had allegedly given only one blow on the thigh. At any rate, the intention to cause the death cannot be attributed to the applicant. The applicant is a young boy and has been in custody since three years. Ms. Afreen Shaikh, the learned Counsel for Jainul (A1) the applicant in BA/241/2024, reiterated the submission that the incident had occurred at the spur of moment and without any premeditation. The presence of the deceased at the time and place of occurrence was a matter of chance. Ms. Shaikh further submitted that though the prosecution has alleged that the applicant had picked up a hot barbeque rod and assaulted the deceased, yet the injuries noted by the Autopsy Surgeon bely the said version as no burn or scalding mark was found on the person of the deceased. Inviting the attention of the Court to the postmortem report which indicates that the cause of death was 'shock and hemorrhage due to injury to left femoral vessels', Ms. Shaikh would urge that the said injury is not attributable to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant, who has been in custody since more than three years, deserves to be enlarged on bail. Smt. Ganapathy, the learned APP, stoutly resisted the prayer for bail. Smt. Ganapathy submitted that the complicity of the applicants is borne out by the statements of the eye witnesses. Over a trivial issue, the accused brutally assaulted the deceased. The injuries caused by both the applicants were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the applicants cannot be permitted to draw mileage from the fact that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to injury to left femoral vessels. It was submitted that the weapons by means of which the applicants assaulted the deceased clearly manifest the intent with which the applicants perpetrated the assault. It was further submitted that pursuant to the discovery made by the applicants the weapons of offence have been recovered. Since there is a very strong prima facie case against the applicants, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. I have perused the report under Section 173 of the Code, especially, the statements of the first informant Mohd. Hussain, Ashraf Kureshi and Asif Ahmed Shaikh. Evidently, the quarrel took place over a trivial issue. The deceased was not a party to the initial altercation. The deceased came in the frame after the first informant reached the mobile shop of Jainul (A1). After the deceased questioned Jainul (A1) and Ahmed (A2), it seems, the quarrel escalated and both the applicants allegedly assaulted the deceased. Prima facie, the witnesses have stated that Jainul (A1) assaulted the deceased by means of barbeque rod and, after the deceased attempted to escape from the clutches of the accused, Ahmed (A2) gave a blow by means of a knife on the thigh of the deceased. The injuries noted by the Autopsy Surgeon lend prima facie support to the ocular account of the witnesses. At this stage, the fact that there was no burn or scalding mark on the person of the deceased does not detract materially from the prosecution version. Prima facie, there is material to indicate that the deceased met homicidal death. The submission on behalf of the applicants that the incident was not premeditated, however, carries some substance. As noted above, the initial altercation was between the applicant Mohd. Hussain, the brother of the deceased. Even Jainul (A1) allegedly picked up a barbeque rod from the adjoining food stall. It is not the case that any of the applicants was already armed or mounted the assault after preparation. The Postmortem Report indicates that the cause of death was,'shock and hemorrhage due to injury to left femoral vessels'. As noted above, Ahmed (A2) gave a single blow by means of knife on the thigh of the deceased. Prima facie, the primary cause of death of the deceased was that, on account of the knife blow, the femoral vessels were cut. In the backdrop of the aforesaid nature of the medical evidence, the submission on behalf of the applicants that the offence may not fall within the dragnet of Section 302 of the Penal Code is required to be appreciated. As a single knife blow on a part of the body, which cannot be said to be vital, was inflicted, the pivotal question that would warrant adjudication at the trial would be, whether the offence would fall within the tentacles of Section 302 or 304 of the Penal Code. 13. Mr. Dhokale, the learned Counsel for Ahmed (A2), placed reliance on an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sk. Zuber s/o Sk. Dastagir vs. State of Maharashtra 1 , wherein in a somewhat similar fact-situation, this Court was persuaded to enlarge the accused on bail. The observations in paragraph 5 read as under: "5. In case at hand, solitary blow was given by the applicant to the deceased at his left thigh-non-vital part which has caused cut of femoral vessel. By any stretch of imagination, one cannot say that the applicant knew the location of femoral vessel and its fatal result on its cut. As per prosecution case, other four accused had caught hold the victim, meaning thereby, victim was made defenseless still the applicant gave a single blow that too on thigh instead of other vital parts of the 1 Cri. Application (BA) No.395/2021. body which is factor to be weighed in favour of the applicant. Concededly while dealing with the bail application, the Court is not expected to martial material nor to express decisive opinion about the occurrence. However, it is open to form prima facie view if the facts are Order 20 BA 395 apparent and clear. In the above circumstances, on prima facie basis intention to kill cannot be gathered. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is young body aged 23 years. Trial will take considerable time for its disposal." In the case of Harjinder Singh vs. Delhi Administration 2 , the accused therein had inflicted an injury on the upper portion of left thigh of the deceased. In that context, it was held that it cannot be said with any definiteness that the accused aimed the blow at the particular part of the thigh knowing that it would cut the artery. It was, therefore, not possible to apply Clause 3 of Section 300 to the act of the accused. 15. In the case of Gokul Parashram Patil vs. State of Maharashtra 3 , wherein a single knife blow was inflicted above left clavicle cutting superior venacava, the Supreme Court observed as under: "4. ..... The solitary blow given by the appellant to the deceased was on the left clavicle - a non-vital part - and it would be too much to say that the appellant knew that the superior venacava would be cut as a result of that wound. Even a medical man perhaps may not have been able to judge the location of the superior venacava with any precision of that type. The fact that the venacava was cut must, therefore, be ascribed to a non- intentional or accidental circumstance. This was precisely the view taken in Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration, by Sikri, J., and in Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. The State of Maharashtra, by Hidayatullah, C.J. In the former 2 AIR 1968 Supreme Court 867. 3 (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 331. of these cases, the injury in question was a stab wound on the left thigh which had cut the femoral artery and vessels. In the latter, the damage caused consisted of a cut in the auxiliary artery and veins. In each of the two cases it was held that although the injury which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death had resulted from a blow with a sharp-edged weapon, the same could not be said to have been intended, that the only injury which could be regarded as intentional was the superficial wound resulting directly from the blow, that the assailant could not be held guilty of an offence under section 302 of the Code and that he was, on the other hand, guilty of a lesser offence falling under part II of section 304 thereof." In view of the aforesaid position in law, the aspect of complicity of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code appears to be a matter for adjudication at the trial. To add to this, it appears that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and there was no premeditation. Investigation is complete. The applicants are in custody since more than three years. It is extremely unlikely that the trial can be concluded within a reasonable period. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) Applications stand allowed. (ii) Ahmed Abdul Kadir Ansari, the applicant in BA/2442/2024 and Jainul Abdul Kadir Ansari, the applicant in BA/241/2024, be released on bail in CR No.522 of 2021, registered with Mankhurd Police Station, on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge. (iii) The applicants shall mark their presence at Mankhurd Police Station on the first Monday of every alternate month between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for a period of two years or till conclusion of trial, whichever is earlier. (iv) The applicants shall not enter the limits of Mankhurd Police Station for a period of three years or till the conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier, except for attending the police station on the scheduled dates. (v) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant and any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer. (vi) On being released on bail, the applicants shall furnish their contact number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. (vii) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court. (viii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and co-accused and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of observations made hereinabove. Applications disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1105 OF 2015 Ghanshyam Jagannath Vishwakarma ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Priyanka S.Karnik, Advocate appointed ,for the applicant. Ms. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the State CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 18th June, 2015. P.C . An application is received through jail. The applicant is praying for bail in Case No.253 of 2012 registered at Kandivli Police Station. This Court had requested the learned counsel Ms. Priyanka S. Karnik, to espouse the cause of the applicant. He has graciously accepted to do the same. Office to furnish copy of the application to the Advocate so appointed. The learned APP to take specific instructions in respect of the stage of the trial. S.O. 30.6.2015 (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1105 OF 2015 Ghanshyam Jagannath Vishwakarma .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : 30th JUNE 2015 PC : Learned APP has placed on record the report showing that applicant herein has been enlarged on bail on 12/06/2015. It is also fairly submitted that applicant has attended Sessions Court on 18/06/2015. Report is taken on record and marked as article 'X' for the purpose of identification. In view of this, prayers in the application have become infructuous. Application stands disposed of in above terms. Office to communicate this order to the Sessions Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1352 OF 2017 Lalya @ Vishal Ravindra Dadar Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Sankalan Das i/by Subhash Hulyalkar For Applicant Ms. Anamika Malhotra,APP for state CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 3rd July, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to 17/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1352 OF 2017 Lalya @ Vishal Ravindra Dadar Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Ms. Pranali Kakade i/by Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar for the Applicant. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 21st AUGUST 2017 P.C. After hearing arguments, it is expressed that this Court is not inclined to grant relief. Upon that Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that Applicant was aged about 18 years and 3 months. The Applicant is behind the bars since last 4 years. She requested that trial be expedited. As the Applicant has been behind the bars since last 4 years, this Court holds proceedings against Applicants needs to be expedited. Trial Court is expected to dispose of the proceedings within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. [T. V. NALAWADE, J]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 899 OF 2019 Akash Vinayak Choudhari ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 25th June, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 17/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 899 OF 2019 Akash Vinayak Choudhari ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 17th July, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 23/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 899 OF 2019 Akash Vinayak Choudhari ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 23rd July, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 08/08/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 899 OF 2019 Akash Vinayak Choudhari ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 8th August, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 06/09/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 899 OF 2019 Akash Vinayak Choudhari ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 6th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 23/09/2019 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 899 OF 2019 Akash Vinayak Choudhari Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent Raju more i/b.Nitesh Jaywant Mohite For Applicant A.A.Takalkar App for State CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 23rd September, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners / respondent / applicant , Stand over to 30/09/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 899 OF 2019 Akash Vinayak Choudhari ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 30th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 01/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: spb/ 901ba899-19.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 899 OF 2019 Akash Vinayak Choudhari… Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent. Mr. Deepak R. More, Advocate, i/by Nitesh J. Mohite for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State/Respondent. (Mr. S.L. Nanvare, PSI to Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune is present.). CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2019. PC : 1 After arguing for some time, when I expressed my disinclination to grant relief, the learned counsel for the Applicant prays for withdrawal of this Application. Prayer is granted. 2 Application is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such. ….. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J**.**)

Order - Status 11: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1032 OF 2011 Noormohammed Hasan Bepari .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.J.B.Kocheta i/b. Mr.S.M.Bhalghat & Mr.P.D.Purway, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.F.E.Saldanha, Special Public Prosecutor, for NCB Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. On being indicated that the application would not be granted, the learned Counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw Bail Application. Bail Application is allowed to be withdrawn. Bail Application is disposed of as withdrawn. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)