All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 9 JULY 2015. P.C . :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary/ Daily Boards stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 27/07/2015 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 28/07/2015 31, 33, 34, 35, 36 30/07/2015 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 31/07/2015 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 03/08/2015 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1858 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearance, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh for Applicants. Mr. K. S. Pillai - C. A. of Respondent No.1 present CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 27 JULY 2015 P.C. :- 1] Mr. K. S. Pillai, constituted attorney for the respondent no.1 files reply opposing the application seeking amendment of the petition. However, since the petition is yet to be admitted, in my judgment, there is no reason to deny leave to amend. The objections of the respondent no. 1, mainly, are directed against the merits of the contentions and reliefs raised by way of amendment. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 shall be at liberty to raise all such objections once the amendment is carried out and the petition is taken up for admission. 2] With liberty, as aforesaid, civil application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Necessary amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today and within one week thereafter, copy of the amended petition be furnished to the respondents. 3] Place the main petition for admission on 24 August 2015. In the meanwhile, if any of the respondents, including the respondent no. 1, desire to file any reply, they shall be at liberty to do so. (M. S. SONAK, J.) Chandka

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2015 Smt. Maulanbee Jiyavuddin Shaikh And Anr. ....PETITIONER V/S Dr. (smt.) Chitra Kanagasabapathy And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1858 OF 2015 In Writ Petition 47 OF 2015 Smt. Maulanbee Jiyavuddin Shaikh And Anr. ....APPLICANT V/S Dr. (smt.) Chitra Kanagasabapathy And Ors. ....RESPONDENT Mr.Piyush A. Singh a/w. Krishnakant Singh i/b.AJAY KUMAR SINGH for Petitioner Mr.Surya Das i/b. R.R. Sharma for R.Nos.4 to 7. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 12th January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 02/02/2023 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ...Respondent …. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the appellant/State. Mr. Hemant Sharma i/b Mr. Ganesh Gole, advocate for the respondent. …. CORAM : N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2019 P.C. : Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Sharma h/f advocate for the respondent prays for an adjournment. Stand over to 27/09/2019. ( N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, A.P.P.For Appellant Mr.Ganesh Gole ( For Res. No.1) For Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 14th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 16/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 16th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 17/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 17th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 18/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra …..Appellant Versus Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam …..Respondent None for Appellant. None for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2019 P. C. : Neither the parties nor their counsel are present, stand over after four weeks. [ BHARATI DANGRE, J. ]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ) Age about 32 years, R/o. Gude, Tal.Panhala ) Dist. Kolhapur )....Respondent ---- Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant/State. Mr.Dheeraj Patil a/w Ms.Tanuja Parashave i/by Mr.Drupad S.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14.1.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur acquitting accused of offences punishable under sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the said Act). The facts in brief are that accused was working as a candidate in record section in the office of Tahasildar, Panhala, Kolhapur. I am told, the candidate's role in the office of Tahasildar is to work as an Assistant to the Record Keeper. One Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav-complainant (PW-1) had applied for certified copies of mutation entries on 22.9.1997. Photocopying charge etc. was actually coming to Rs.36.45/- but when complainant approached accused on 25.9.1997, accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- which included Rs.36.45/- as copying fee and the balance as bribe/illegal gratification. Accused therefore, filed complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for taking necessary action. After obtaining sanction, a trap was decided to be laid. Two panchas were called and necessary instructions and formalities were completed. The raiding party thereafter went to the office of accused on 29.9.1997 and caught accused red handed with the marked currency note of Rs.100/-. The post trap panchanama was also drawn and the crime was registered against accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was lodged, charges were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The stand of accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that when complainant had come to apply for certified copy, he did not have money with him so accused helped him by borrowing Rs.100/- from somebody else and on 29.9.1997 complainant came to return that money of Rs.100/-. I have to be candid that I find this stand rather strange because it is not the case of accused that complainant was known to him very well or is a close friend. At the same time, I am not discarding that stand as imaginary because one never knows there could be some good people who help others. To drive home the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 5 witnesses viz. Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav (PW-1), Complainant ; Dastagir Babasaheb Mulla (PW-2) who was the Stenographer in the office of Tahasildar ; Jaywant Vasantrao Kothawale (PW-3) Clerk/Record keeper in the office of Tahasildar ; Shivajirao Satyappa Kambale (PW-4) Nayab Tahasildar at Panhala ; and Vinayak Shivram Tilekar (PW-5), Police Inspector in ACB. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents that were filed, by giving a very detailed order and judgment dated 9.8.2002 acquitted accused and this order of acquittal is impugned in this appeal. For the sake of brevity, I am not going into all those details which the trial Court has gone into, because I feel certain facts as stated by Complainant and the prosecution witnesses itself are enough to dismiss this appeal. PW-1 who is complainant, in his examination-in-chief states that accused went through the contents of his application and asked him to attend the office on 25.9.1997 and when complainant went back on 25.9.1997 and asked accused, accused informed complainant (PW-1) that he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of legal charges against 3 mutation entries. PW-1 also says that accused asked him to deposit Rs.100/- so that the balance amount after paying Rs.36.45/- to the Government will be his bribe which is a condition precedent to issue the mutation extracts. As per PW-1 he did not have that much money with him and accused asked complainant to attend the office again on 27.9.1997 with money. In his cross-examination PW-1 says that it is not correct to say that accused demanded sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of copying fees and the remaining amount by way of bribe. This itself goes to the root of the matter and this contradiction itself is enough to knock the matter down. PW-3 is a Record Keeper in the office of Tahasildar. In his cross-examination he says that he received all the papers from accused on 25.9.1997 and thereafter no work remained with accused after 25.9.1997. He also says that employee candidates/accused used to sit outside the record room. The employee candidates were not empowered by him to collect money or copying fees and the employee candidates used to direct clients to contact PW-3 for paying the fees. Therefore, PW-3 who is the prosecution witness says that accused was never empowered to collect any money and all the applicants are directed to him for paying the necessary fees. PW-4 who is Nayab Tahasildar says that copying candidates like accused are not paid by Government and they do not receive salary or remuneration from Government and he was also not a Government employee or Government servant. Therefore, the applicability of section 7 of the said Act itself is in question. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove PW-4 wrong. Exh.14 is copy of the application made by complainant and Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the extract of mutation entries. PW-4 says that extract was ready on 25.9.1997 and all compliance was done. He also says that he has endorsed papers and sent them to record section for delivering copies. PW-4 says that general record book is maintained by record keeper and record keeper used to deliver copies to applicant. PW-4 also endorsed what PW-3 says that it is the responsibility of record keeper to receive fees from applicant, issue receipt and receive amount. He says that Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the copies that were ready and prepared on 25.9.1997 under his signature. PW-4 also says it is not the responsibility of the employee candidate to receive fees, prepare copies and deliver the copies. If one looks at Exh.15, 16 & 17 it says the application was received on 22.9.1997 [ uDdy vtZ vkyk rkjh[k ], the copies were ready on 23.9.1997 [ uDdy r;kj rkjh[k ] and the copies were given on 25.9.1997 [ uDdy fnyh rkjh[k ]. Therefore, Exh.15, 16 & 17 state that those extracts were given to applicant on 25.9.1997. This means that on 22.9.1997 itself or latest by 25.9.1997 itself the photo copying charges have been paid, because Exh.15,16 & 17 also indicate the photo copying charges paid. It is therefore, difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that on 25.9.1997, complainant did not have money with him and accused asked him to bring money on 29.9.1997. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence as prescribed under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(d) of the said Act. Prosecution has failed in discharging this burden. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ) Age about 32 years, R/o. Gude, Tal.Panhala ) Dist. Kolhapur )....Respondent ---- Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant/State. Mr.Dheeraj Patil a/w Ms.Tanuja Parashave i/by Mr.Drupad S.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14.1.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur acquitting accused of offences punishable under sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the said Act). The facts in brief are that accused was working as a candidate in record section in the office of Tahasildar, Panhala, Kolhapur. I am told, the candidate's role in the office of Tahasildar is to work as an Assistant to the Record Keeper. One Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav-complainant (PW-1) had applied for certified copies of mutation entries on 22.9.1997. Photocopying charge etc. was actually coming to Rs.36.45/- but when complainant approached accused on 25.9.1997, accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- which included Rs.36.45/- as copying fee and the balance as bribe/illegal gratification. Accused therefore, filed complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for taking necessary action. After obtaining sanction, a trap was decided to be laid. Two panchas were called and necessary instructions and formalities were completed. The raiding party thereafter went to the office of accused on 29.9.1997 and caught accused red handed with the marked currency note of Rs.100/-. The post trap panchanama was also drawn and the crime was registered against accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was lodged, charges were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The stand of accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that when complainant had come to apply for certified copy, he did not have money with him so accused helped him by borrowing Rs.100/- from somebody else and on 29.9.1997 complainant came to return that money of Rs.100/-. I have to be candid that I find this stand rather strange because it is not the case of accused that complainant was known to him very well or is a close friend. At the same time, I am not discarding that stand as imaginary because one never knows there could be some good people who help others. To drive home the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 5 witnesses viz. Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav (PW-1), Complainant ; Dastagir Babasaheb Mulla (PW-2) who was the Stenographer in the office of Tahasildar ; Jaywant Vasantrao Kothawale (PW-3) Clerk/Record keeper in the office of Tahasildar ; Shivajirao Satyappa Kambale (PW-4) Nayab Tahasildar at Panhala ; and Vinayak Shivram Tilekar (PW-5), Police Inspector in ACB. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents that were filed, by giving a very detailed order and judgment dated 9.8.2002 acquitted accused and this order of acquittal is impugned in this appeal. For the sake of brevity, I am not going into all those details which the trial Court has gone into, because I feel certain facts as stated by Complainant and the prosecution witnesses itself are enough to dismiss this appeal. PW-1 who is complainant, in his examination-in-chief states that accused went through the contents of his application and asked him to attend the office on 25.9.1997 and when complainant went back on 25.9.1997 and asked accused, accused informed complainant (PW-1) that he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of legal charges against 3 mutation entries. PW-1 also says that accused asked him to deposit Rs.100/- so that the balance amount after paying Rs.36.45/- to the Government will be his bribe which is a condition precedent to issue the mutation extracts. As per PW-1 he did not have that much money with him and accused asked complainant to attend the office again on 27.9.1997 with money. In his cross-examination PW-1 says that it is not correct to say that accused demanded sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of copying fees and the remaining amount by way of bribe. This itself goes to the root of the matter and this contradiction itself is enough to knock the matter down. PW-3 is a Record Keeper in the office of Tahasildar. In his cross-examination he says that he received all the papers from accused on 25.9.1997 and thereafter no work remained with accused after 25.9.1997. He also says that employee candidates/accused used to sit outside the record room. The employee candidates were not empowered by him to collect money or copying fees and the employee candidates used to direct clients to contact PW-3 for paying the fees. Therefore, PW-3 who is the prosecution witness says that accused was never empowered to collect any money and all the applicants are directed to him for paying the necessary fees. PW-4 who is Nayab Tahasildar says that copying candidates like accused are not paid by Government and they do not receive salary or remuneration from Government and he was also not a Government employee or Government servant. Therefore, the applicability of section 7 of the said Act itself is in question. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove PW-4 wrong. Exh.14 is copy of the application made by complainant and Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the extract of mutation entries. PW-4 says that extract was ready on 25.9.1997 and all compliance was done. He also says that he has endorsed papers and sent them to record section for delivering copies. PW-4 says that general record book is maintained by record keeper and record keeper used to deliver copies to applicant. PW-4 also endorsed what PW-3 says that it is the responsibility of record keeper to receive fees from applicant, issue receipt and receive amount. He says that Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the copies that were ready and prepared on 25.9.1997 under his signature. PW-4 also says it is not the responsibility of the employee candidate to receive fees, prepare copies and deliver the copies. If one looks at Exh.15, 16 & 17 it says the application was received on 22.9.1997 [ uDdy vtZ vkyk rkjh[k ], the copies were ready on 23.9.1997 [ uDdy r;kj rkjh[k ] and the copies were given on 25.9.1997 [ uDdy fnyh rkjh[k ]. Therefore, Exh.15, 16 & 17 state that those extracts were given to applicant on 25.9.1997. This means that on 22.9.1997 itself or latest by 25.9.1997 itself the photo copying charges have been paid, because Exh.15,16 & 17 also indicate the photo copying charges paid. It is therefore, difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that on 25.9.1997, complainant did not have money with him and accused asked him to bring money on 29.9.1997. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence as prescribed under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(d) of the said Act. Prosecution has failed in discharging this burden. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam )....Respondent CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 21.1.2020 P C. . :- 1 Suo motu called for speaking to the minutes. 2 In the order dated 14th January 2020, after paragraph 13, add the following as paragraph 14 : The State Government/Appropriate Authority shall pay over to respondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other benefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. No authority shall demand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above. All to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. 3 Rest of the order remains unaltered. Original order to be corrected accordingly. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 704 OF 2019 Mr. Dhulappa Jagannath Shelke And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The Prin. Secretary, The Gen. Administration ....Respondent Dept. And Ors Dr Sudhakar Avhad i/by Mr Chetan R Nagare, Advocate For Petitioner Mr Y S Khochare, AGP for Respondents-State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 21st January, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 24/01/2019. Writ Petition No. 92/2019 to be heard along with this Writ Petition. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 704 OF 2019 Dhulappa Jagannath Shelke & ors. Petitioners Versus The Principal Secretary, The Gen. Adminsitration Department & ors. Respondents Mr. Chetan Nagare, I/b Dr. Sudhakar Avhad, for the Petitioner. Mr. Y. S. Khochare, AGP for the State/Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 25th January, 2019 PC: 1. The Petitioner has directly approached this Court bypassing the alternate remedy available to him of filing an Original Application before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 2. The petition is, therefore, rejected with liberty to file an application before the appropriate forum. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Sachin Patil i/b Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Jain for respondent no.1B. Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : Colleague of Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for the petitioner, prays for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Patil is ill. S.O. for a week. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 31: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's Court's or Judge's orders orders Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde a/w Mr.A.B.Vagyani i/b Mr.Manoj A.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Mishra, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1A to 1B. Mr.Bipin Joshi, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 & 4. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 12th February, 2014 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.D.Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1A to 1B and Mr.Bipin Joshi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. Since the matters are to be disposed of finally at the state of admission as per order dated 27/04/2011, call for record and proceedings of the case telephonically. The petitioner will file copies of i) plaint ii) report of the court Commissioner and iii) evidence led by the plaintiffs in all the suits and serve the copies in advance on the other side. List the petitions for admission on 26/02/2014 at 3.00 p.m. The parties are put to notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, the petitions may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 GULAMBHAI VALIBHAI RAJE )...PETITIONER V/s. SURESH KALYAJI BHAGAT (since deceased) ) JAYA SURESH BHAGAT AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Ashish P. Pawar i/b. Mr.Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay R. Dubey, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1A & 1B. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 2 nd APRIL, 2014. P.C. : 1 Stand over by Two Weeks, to enable the petitioner to file compilation, pursuant to the order dated 27th April 2011. The counsel for Respondents nos.1A & 1B states that Respondent no.1B died on 23rd March 2014. Petitioner to take the suitable steps. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.)

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 .... .... Gulambhai Valibhai Raje ..Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyani Bhagat (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. And Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ashish Pawar, Advocate i/b Manoj Patil for Petitioner. Mr. R.D. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1B. Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 24 MARCH 2015 P.C.: The learned Counsel for petitioner states that Respondent No.1.B. has expired and seeks time to take necessary steps in that regard. At his request, S.O. to 7 April 2015. [N.M. JAMDAR, J.] S.S.DESHPANDE 1 / 1

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai, Son of Valibhai Raje. ] … Petitioner Versus Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (Since Deceased) ] through legal heirs ] 1A Smt. Jaya Suresh Bhagat and Ors. ] … Respondent Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner present in person. Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. V. R. Dubey for Respondent Nos.1A and Ab. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JULY 07, 2015 P. C. : Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner, appears in person and states that his Advocate is unwell and therefore unable to attend the Court. The record reveals that this matter has been taken up for consideration no less than 54 times. There is an interim order, which affects the Respondents. Nevertheless, at the request of Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, stand over to 15/07/2015. It is made clear that in case, the Counsel for the Petitioner is not present and does not proceed with the matter on the next occasion, the appropriate orders shall be made, including orders for dismissal of this petition for nonprosecution. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT Mr Sanjay S Patil Advocate for Petitioner. { Mentioned at 3.50 p.m. } Ms Kavita N Solunke - AGP for Respondent - State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 22nd February, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/02/2022 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mohd.Sayed Fakih, since deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shripat K.Tambde, since deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay S. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent for the State - Respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & S.M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2022. P.C. :- Mr.Pawar, learned AGP for the State seeks time to take instructions and to file affidavit in reply. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the land of the petitioners is the subject matter of the impugned award, the compensation is awarded in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3. Statement is accepted. Issue notice upon the respondent nos.1 to 3, returnable on 6 th April, 2022. Hamdast is permitted. In addition to the Court notice the petitioners are permitted to serve the respondent nos.1 to 3 by private service by all permissible modes of services in accordance with law. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent nos.4 and 5. The respondent nos.4 and 5 shall not release any payment of compensation in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3 till next date. Place the matter on board for admission on 6th April, 2022. (S.M. MODAK, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.) Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.02.24 12:13:36 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mohammud Sayed Fakih Since deceased Through LRs. … Petitioner Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde Since deceased Through LRs. … Respondent Mr. Sanjay S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondents/State. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 6, 2022 P.C. Await service. Stand over to 4 th May 2022. Interim order passed earlier to continue till then. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2022.04.08 15:20:58 +0530

Order - Status 10: 48-wp1201-22.doc vai VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.05.06 15:02:27 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2022 Abdul Mohd.Sy.Fakih, since deceased through his L.Rs. ...Petitioners V/s. Shripat K. Tambde, since deceased through his L.Rs. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Patil for the Petitioners. Mrs.M.S. Bane, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2022. P.C. :- Await service. Returnable date is extended to 12th July, Ad-interim order passed by this Court to continue till then. (M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 12th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/09/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 12th September, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 28/09/2022 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 16: BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2022.09.29 14:57:41 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih … Petitioner Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde & Ors. … Respondents ****** Mr. Sanjay Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Prithviraj Gole for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the State. ****** CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C. :- . The matter is mentioned in the morning. The matter as per the roster would be before the coordinate bench. The coordinate bench is not available. The petitioner seeks continuation of the interim order passed earlier. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is present and the learned AGP is also present. At the request of parties, place the matter on 11th October, 2022. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till then. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Azia Mahammud Sayed Fakih (Since deceased through his LRs) Vazir Begam Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih (Since deceased through her LRs) 1 Tahera Mahammud Yousuf Hendade and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde (Since deceased through his LRs) 1 Vasant Shripat Tambde and Ors. .. Respondents …... Mr.Sanjay Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Sandesh Patil i/b. Mr.Chintan Shaha, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent – State. …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 11 October 2022. RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2022.10.15 16:37:07 +0530 P.C. : The learned counsel for Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, where the Petitioners can make a reference to the concerned authority. 2 Learned counsel for the Petitioner accepts and states that the Petitioners will approach the concerned authority and prays that the ad–interim order granted in this Petition be continued for some time to enable the Petitioners to approach the concerned authority. Considering the above submissions, and the fact that ad–interim order is operating since February 2022, while we dispose of the Petition, we continue the position under ad–interim order dated 23 February 2022, for a period of four weeks. 3 The contentions of the parties are kept open and continuation of ad–interim order will not be construed as reflection on the merits of the rival contentions. 4 Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.

Order - Status 7: ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4296 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.1089 OF 2015 The National Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Applicant vs. Smt.Anuja Ramachal Patel & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Poonam Mittal for the Applicant CORAM :K.K.TATED,J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2019 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. By this application the applicant is seeking stay of operation and implementation Judgment and Award dated 2nd August 2014 passed by MACT,Mumbai in Claim Petition No.2370 of 2007 holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,86,671/ with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they have challenged the impugned Judgment on quantum basis. She submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. She further submits that if the entire amount is recovered by the respondents by filing execution application, then nothing survives in the present application. She submits that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount with interest within three weeks from today. Statement is accepted. She submits that pending the final disposal of the present First Appeal, this Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment. 3 It is to be noted that in the present proceedings accident occurred on 3rd July 2007. Claimant No.1 lost her husband and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 lost their father. At the time of accident the age of the deceased was 45 years. He was running the medical shop under the name and style of Ashish Medical and General Stores,Kandivali, Mumbai. He was earning nearby 1,10,943/ p.a from his business. Considering this aspect, the claimant No.1wife and claimant Nos.3 and 4 being minors, I am of the opinion that they can be permitted to withdraw the amount. 4 Hence I pass the following order : (a) The operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 2nd August 2014 passed by MACT,Mumbai in Claim Petition No.2370 of 2007 is stayed during the pendency of the First Appeal with condition that the Applicant to deposit entire compensation amount with interest in MACT, Mumbai on or before 21st September 2019 failing which Civil Application shall stand dismissed. (b) If the entire amount of compensation with interest is deposited within stipulated time, Applicant No.1Smt.Anuja Ramachal Patel and claimant No.2Master Gaurav Ramachal Patel are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2 lakh each with accrued interest thereon without furnishing any security subject to final outcome of the First Appeal. (c)The Tribunal is directed to invest remaining amount in Fixed deposit in any nationalised bank initially for a period of one year and to continue till further order. (d)Liberty is granted to the respondents claimants, if they so desire, to apply for withdrawal of the amount, which shall be decided on its own merits. (e)Civil Application is disposed of with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Aashish Satpute for Applicant. Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad, APP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 15th January, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant , stand over to 29/01/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 29th January, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/02/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 7th February, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 01/03/2024 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 1st March, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 15/03/2024 ( at 12:30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 15th March, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 19/03/2024 ( at 12:30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 19th March, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 15/04/2024 ( at 12:30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Icham for Applicant. Mr. Pandruang H. Gaikwad, APP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 15th April, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 06/05/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 6th May, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 01/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 1st July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 8th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 11/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Advait Tamhankar i/by Mr. Aashish Satpute for Applicant. Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad, APP for State/Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 11th July, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 19/07/2024 ( at 2:30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 19th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 23/08/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Chaitanya Purankar i/by Mr. Amit Icham for Applicant. Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad, APP for State/Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 23rd August, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant , stand over to 13/09/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2024 Mohammed Farukh Mohammed Umar Tak ] Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Mr.Advait Tamhankar i/b Aashish Satpute for the Applicant. Ms.Sangita Phad, APP for the State. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J RESERVED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 3rd OCTOBER, 2024. P.C. : 1 The Applicant/Accused in Crime No.6/2022 registered with Pune ATS, is seeking regular bail. 2 The aforesaid offence is made punishable under Section 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short "NDPS Act"). 3 The Applicant, on secret inputs was apprehended on 02.05.2022 after having found in possession of 118 Grams of Mephedrone costing around Rs.11,80,000/-. The seizure carried out in the investigation of the aforesaid offence, is of commercial quantity. 4 In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel for the Applicant while seeking regular bail would urge that the Respondent/Investigating Officer has failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. So as to substantiate the aforesaid contention, my attention is invited to the nature, the mode and manner in which the recovery was effected from the Applicant. The learned counsel would urge that since it is mandatory to follow the procedure laid down in the aforesaid provisions of the NDPS Act, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail, as the recovery was neither effected by a Gazetted Officer, nor search. 5 The learned APP, while opposing the prayer for bail would urge that not only the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 50 read with 41 to 43 of the NDPS Act is complied with, but also the report of Chemical Analyser certifies the contraband seized from the Applicant, being banned substance. It is claimed that the Applicant is already charge-sheeted and there is enough iota of evidence to directly connect the Applicant to the crime. As such, it is urged that the Application is liable to be rejected. 2/4 6 Having appreciated the rival claims, it is appreciated that on specific inputs the Applicant was apprehended on 02.05.2022 at about 6.30 p.m. and he was sensitized about his right under Section 41, 42, 43 and 50. The written consent given by the Applicant for carrying out personal search by the Police Officer sufficiently speaks of compliance of the statutory mandate as provided under the NDPS Act. 7 Apart from above, the station diary entry was made about the offence and the same was immediately forwarded to the immediate superior by the Assistant Police Inspector. As such, there is compliance of Section 42, so also Section 50. 8 Apart from above, the quantity seized from the Applicant appears to be certified by the Chemical Analyser to be a banned substance under the NDPS Act. The said quantity is commercial in nature. In the aforesaid backdrop, prima-facie, no technical flaw could be noticed in the investigation against the Applicant. Perusal of the investigation papers depict that there is strong evidence available against the Applicant so as to infer his prima facie involvement in the offence in question and the offence being grave in nature, I see no reason to consider and grant the prayer for releasing the Applicant on bail. 9 Apart from above, the Courts below have consequently rejected his regular Bail Applications by recording the cogent reasons. In this background, the Application stands rejected. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, 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 9: -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUNATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1627 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.1140 OF 2005 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Ms Deepali Kali h/f Mr.P.N.Joshi for the Applicant Mr.Arun Palekar for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 4,2008. P.C.: Heard Advocates for the parties. Second Appeal has been admitted for final hearing. The decree for possession passed by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Court was stayed during the pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Court. In this view of the matter, ad-interim order granted on 13th October 2005 deserves to be continued as interim order till the final disposal of the Appeal. Hence, Civil Application is disposed of by directing that ad-interim order dated 13th October 2005 will continue to operate as interim order till the final disposal of the Appeal. JUDGE

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2016 Shri Dastageer Karim Chougule ....Appellant V/S Shri Rajaram Dinkar Khot And Anr ....Respondent None present. CORAM : VIRENDRASINGH GYANSINGH BISHT, J DATE : 30th January, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 27/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2016 Shri Dastageer Karim Chougule ....APPELLANT V/S Shri Rajaram Dinkar Khot And Anr ....RESPONDENT None for parties CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 27th September, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 25/10/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.448 OF 2016. —————— —————— Dastageer Karim Chougule ...Appellant. Versus Rajaram Dinkar Khot and Anr. ...Respondents. None for the Appellant. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 25th October, 2024. P. C. : 1. None appears for the appellant. Even on the last ocassion, none had appeared for the appellant. 2. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of disposal of appeal, Interim/Civil Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]