All Criminal Appeal

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 Uday Kumar Abhevardhan .. Petitioner -versus The Union of India and anr .. Respondent Mr. Anil Lalla i/b Lalla and Lalla for the Petitioner Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere for the union of India CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATED: 23rd March, 2010 P.C. vks This is the second Application for bail. The first bail application rejected by this Court (Coram: A.M. Khanwilkar, J.). Therefore it is appropriate that this application be placed before the same Court. The Office to take steps. ( V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 ...... ...... Uday Kumar Abhevardhan ...Applicant Versus Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Shankar Dhoble i/b M/s.Lalla & Lalla for Applicant. Ms.Revati Mohite Dere for Respondent No.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED :- APRIL 16, 2010. P.C. I am informed that Mr.Anil Lala is in personal difficulty. Request for adjournment is made. Stand over to 30th April 2010 at 3.00 p.m. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 113 of 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388 of 2007 Uday Kumar Abhev Ardhan ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Sunil Gadre i/b. Anil Lalla i/b. M/s. Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Ms. S.V.Gajare-APP for the State. Smt. Revati Mohite Dere, advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- MAY 07, 2010 P.C. Request for adjournment is made on the ground that Mr. Lalla, advocate for the applicant is unavailable. Stand over to 11th June, 2010 at 3.00 p.m. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 Uday Kumar Abhev Ardhan. ....Applicant. Vs. Union of India & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr.Anil Lalla i/b. M/s. Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Smt. Revati Mohite Dere for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.V.Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- JUNE 11, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. S Present application is filed on the sole ground that the applicant has already undergone more than 6 years and 11 months of imprisonment when the application was filed. The fact that the applicant's prayer for bail was considered on merits and rejected by this Court on 7th April, 2008 while deciding Criminal Application No.950 of 2008 is not disputed. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 21(c) r/w sec.8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10(ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) in default to suSffer further R.I. for one year. The fact that the applicant as of now has undergone 7 years of imprisonment is not in dispute. The question is whether inspite of mandate of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Court can show indulgence to the applicant on the ground that he has undergone substantive part of sentence. In this case, the sentence undergone is over 7 years out of 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment. To buttress the contention, the learned Counsel for the applicant has essentially relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mansingh V/s. Union of India (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 279, which was decided by the Apex Court on September 27, 2004. Indeed, in that case the appellant was held guilty of the offence punishable under sections 8/18 and 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on each count. The Apex Court considering the fact that the Appellant before it had undergone more than 7 years of imprisonment, released the appellant on bail. It is noticed that the said order has been passed by the Apex Court in the pending appeal filed by the Accused to question the order of conviction and sentence before the High Court. The question is: whether this order can be treated as a binding precedent. The learned APP has rightly invited my attention to the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India V/s Rattan Malik alias Habul (2009) 2 SCC 624, Ratan Kumar Vishwas V/s. State of U.P. & Anr. 2008 AIR SCW 7719 and Union of India v/s. Shiv Shanker Kesari(2009) 3 SCC(Cri) 505 . These decisions have expounded the sweep of section 37 of the Act. The mandate of section 37 of the Act applies on all fours to the situation where the person is in custody as under trial prisoner or for that matter at the stage of appeal before the High Court. Going by the said mandate, it is not possible to countenance the stand of the applicant that since he has undergone substantial part of the sentence should be released on bail only on that consideration. My attention has already been invited to the said decisions of our High Court in the case of Pritam Namdeo v/s. Union of India and Anr. decided on 23rd March, 2010 in Criminal Application No.1 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2007 as well as in the case of Aniruddh Chavan vs. The Union of India & Anr . in Criminal Application No.433 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2008 decided on January 21, 2010. Similar argument has been considered and rejected. I am in agreement with the opinion expressed in the said decisions. The Counsel for the applicant however, placed reliance on recent decision of another Single Judge of our High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 854 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1253 of 2008 decided on March 9, 2010. With utmost respect, it is not possible to place reliance on this decision to uphold the contention of the applicant. For, the said view is only on the basis of Mansingh's case (supra) . This Court would be bound by the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court which have restated the settled legal position about the sweep of section 37 of the Act. Further, the order in the case of Mansingh(supra) pressed into service may be ascribable to the inherent powers of the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it to note that the said decision has not decided the case with reference to the sweep of section 37 of the Act, which aspect has been considered in the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court. Keeping in mind the mandate of section 37, it is not open for this Court to carve out further exception to section 37 of the Act, which would inevitably result in rewriting of the said section. In other words, merely because the applicant has already undergone substantial part of the sentence, by itself cannot be the basis to release him on bail. In the circumstances, taking over all view of the matter, this application should fail. The same is rejected. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 820 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2007 Shivaji Shankar Ghadge ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. M.V. Thorat i/by Ms. Pooja V. Thorat for the applicant. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED : JULY 18, 2011 P.C. In the light of the order passed in Criminal Application No. 376 of 2010, Criminal application No. 820 of 2011 is rejected. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) hvn

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 736 OF 2016 (For fixing date of final hearing) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2007 Arjun Baban Jagdhane Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Onkar Nagvekar i/b Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar for the Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. WEDNESDAY, 20th JULY, 2016 P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. By this application, the applicant prays that the Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2007 be restored to the final hearing board and date may be fixed for final hearing. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Appeal was earlier added to the final hearing board, however, is not on board now. Perused the application. For the reasons set out in the application, the application is allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2007 be added to the final hearing board in the category of appeals where the accused are on bail, in the week commencing from 25th July, 2016 at its appropriate place. Application is disposed of. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 10: agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.783 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.706 OF 2004 Laxman @ Bhimgonda Appaya Patil ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr.S.A. Ingawala for the petitioner. Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M. Khanwilkar, & U.D. Salvi, JJ. DATE : 7th September 2010. P.C. : This application through jail is filed for expediting the hearing of the appeal. The appeal pertains to the year 2004. Presently the matters under caption 'convicts in jail' have been given precedence as per the assignment. Office is directed to list the appeal under caption 'convicts in jail' as per its turn, provided the same ready for hearing in all respects. If the appeal is unready, the Advocate for the appellant may take steps as may be advised for making the appeal ready to proceed. The criminal application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (U.D. Salvi, J.) (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 67 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2006 Hanmant Shankar Jivane ... Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. --- Mrs. Sonia Miskeen, Appointed Advocate, Legal Aid Committee, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent. CORAM: V.M.KANADE & P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED: 10th APRIL,2012 P.C.:- 1. The Applicant has filed this application through Jail. The Applicant is seeking bail. The Applicant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C and sentence to suffer R.I. for life. 2. We have perused the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court. There is sufficient material on record to indicate the involvement of the present applicant. The prosecution case is that the applicant was found to be in possession of counterfeit currency notes valued at Rs. 12 lacs. 3. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to consider the application. His application for bail is rejected. Criminal Appeal, however is directed to be placed on Final Hearing Board on the week commencing from 23rd April, 2012. 4. Application is accordingly disposed of. (P.D.KODE,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 23th APRIL 2015 P.C. : On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under: SR.NO NUMBER ADJOURNED DATE 2 ALP/46/2013 28/04/2015 4 APPA/838/2014 28/04/2015 5 APPA/131/2015 28/04/2015 6 APPA/483/2015 28/04/2015 8 APPLN/688/2014 28/04/2015 10 APEAL/408/2015 09/06/2015 11 APPLN/451/2013 05/05/2015 12 APPLN/529/2013 05/05/2015 13 APPLN/532/2013 05/05/2015 14 APEAL/794/1997 15/06/2015 15 APEAL/913/2004 15/06/2015 2 Interim orders, if any in force in any of the petitions/applications, till today, shall continue to remain in force till the next date fixed for such matter/matters. 3 In case of extreme urgency either of the parties may move the Court for production of papers before it. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 28th APRIL 2015 P.C. : On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under: SR.NO NUMBER ADJOURNED DATE 29 ALP/124/2015 09/06/2015 30 ALP/156/2015 09/06/2015 31 APEAL/311/2015 09/06/2015 33 APEAL/498/2015 16/06/2015 34 ALP/322/2013 16/06/2015 35 ALP/471/2013 16/06/2015 36 ALP/46/2013 16/06/2015 37 ALP/584/2013 16/06/2015 38 ALP/119/2014 16/06/2015 39 APPLN/695/2014 16/06/2015 40 APPLN/58/2015 16/06/2015 41 APPP/338/2015 08/05/2015 42 APPA/485/2015 08/05/2015 43 APEAL/612/2013 07/05/2015 44 APPA/838/2014 07/05/2015 45 APPA/1131/2014 12/06/2015 46 APPA/319/2015 12/06/2015 47 APEAL/330/2015 12/06/2015 48 APEAL/395/1995 16/06/2015 49 APEAL/1302/2004 16/06/2015 50 APEAL/19/2005 16/06/2015 2 Interim orders, if any in force in any of the petitions/applications, till today, shall continue to remain in force till the next date fixed for such matter/matters. 3 In case of extreme urgency either of the parties may move the Court for production of papers before it. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.838 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2013 Gulab Rambhai Rohit ... Applicant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. ... Respondents ..... Mrs.Mallika Ingale, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.Krinjal Ahuja i/b. Mr.Rajesh Desia, Advocate for the Respondent/CBI. Ms.Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent/State. .... CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY J. DATED : 7TH MAY 2015 P.C. The learned counsel for the respondent/CBI prays for time to file a counter affidavit. Stand over to 19th June 2015 . To be listed along with appeal. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.838 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2013 Gulab Ramubhai Rohit ... Applicant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/b. Ms.Malika A. Ingale, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.Rebecca Gonsalvez, Advocate for the Respondent No.1/CBI. Mrs.S.GajareDhumal, APP for the Respondent/State. .... ..... CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY J. DATED : 8TH OCTOBER 2015 P.C. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/CBI prays for time. Granted finally. Stand over to 28th October 2015 . (ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.) CERTIFICATE Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.

Order - Status 16: 4-APPA-838-2014-APPEAL-84-2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.838 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2013 GULAB RAMBHAI ROHIT )...APPLICANT V/s. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.)...RESPONDENTS Shri S.V.Marwadi i/b. Smt.Mallika Ingale, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt.Rebecca Gonsalvez, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Smt.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 28th OCTOBER 2015. P.C. : 1 Shri S.V.Marwadi, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that he would urge that the appeal itself be listed for final hearing at an early date, and that, he would not press the present application. 2 After hearing Shri Marwadi and Smt.Rebecca Gonsalvez, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, it is directed that the appeal be listed for 'Final Hearing' on 8th December 2015. 3 In view of this, the application is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.) CERTIFICATE Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment / Order.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.919 of 2007 In Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2007 Shakil @ Sunil Abdul Raheman Khan .. .. Applicant (Orig. Accused No.2) v/s. The State of Maharashtra .. .. Respondent None for Applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmuk h, APP for Respondent ---- CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 23rd August, 2007 P.C. : Heard the learned APP for the Respondent- State. This Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Applicant (original Accused No.2) for condoning the delay of 4 years and 184 days in filing the above Appeal. This Application is filed through jail. We have perused the said Application and it appears that due to financial constraint and other difficulties, the Applicant could not lodge the above Appeal in time. The Appeal arises out of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Under the aforesaid circumstances, sufficient cause is made for condonation of delay. There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bona fide on the part of the Applicant. Hence, the delay in filing the above Appeal is condoned. The Application stands disposed of accordingly. ( DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 5: ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.785 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST)NO.574 OF 2011 Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale and ors ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent None for the Applicants. Adv. P. S. Hingorani, A. P. P. for State. CORAM : NARESH. H. PATIL, & K. U. CHANDIWAL, J J. DATE : JULY 8, 2011 P.C. The Applications were called out twice. None appears for Applicants. S.O to 18.07.2011. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 785 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 574 OF 2011 Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale and Ors... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Abhaykumar Apte i/by Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED : JULY 18, 2011 P.C. Heard. Perused the application. Delay is condoned. Application disposed off. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

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

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1067 OF 2004 RajeshApplicant Bachanu Dixit versus StateRespondent of Maharashtra Niranjan Mundargi for applicant. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th January 2009 PC : Considering the nature of prayer made in the application, the propriety requires that the same should be placed before the learned Judge who has passed the order dated 23rd November 2004. Registry to act accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 9: Shri Dev Kumar Singh ..... Applicant. V/s Rajesh @ Baba Bachanu Dixit and Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1067 OF 2004 Rajesh Bachanu Dixit ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 20 th February, 2009 P.C:- Mentioned, not on board. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the place where the applicant has to surrender has not been mentioned in the order dated 11/2/2009 passed by this Court in the above application. Applicant is directed to surrender to Dahisar Police Station within one week from today. The order dated 11/2/2009 passed in the above application is modified accordingly. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry. (V.M. KANADE, J.)