All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1160 OF 2017 Isakivelu Pechhimuttu Nadar And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 5th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 14/06/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. BAIL APPLICATION NO.1160 OF 2017 Isakivelu Pechhimuttu Nadar & Ors. .. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …... Ms. Vinaya Padwal, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP for the Respondent – State. …... CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATED : JUNE 14, 2017. P.C. : Learned advocate for the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants have been released on bail by the trial Court. She, therefore, seeks withdrawal of this application. The application is allowed to be withdrawn. Bail Application is disposed of as withdrawn. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

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

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

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

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

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

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.886 OF 2017 Dilip @ Deepak Shankar Karanjkar Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Avnendra Kumar i/by Rahul Tiwari for Applicant. Smt.J.S.Lohokare, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 05th June 2017 PC : Learned advocate for Applicant states that he has not served copy of application to the office of Public Prosecutors. He, therefore, seeks a week's time. Request is accepted. Stand over to 12th June 2017. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 886 of 2017 Dilip @ Deepak Shankar Karanjkar …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Rahul Tiwari for the applicant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the respondentState. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12 JUNE 2017 P.C. : This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 78 of 2017 registered with Kurar Police Station, Malad(E), Mumbai for the offences punishable under section 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The FIR was registered on 5 April, 2017. It is the prosecution case that the officers employed with Reliance Energy Ltd. has conducted raid on 5 April, 2017 and they noticed theft of electricity is being committed from Mini Pillar and seven cables found on terrace of Sai Medical which were running through drainage. It was noticed that electricity supply was being provided to 500 to 600 unauthorised hutment dwellers which are situated 700 to 800 meters within forest area. On enquiry, it was revealed that the applicant and the coaccused Satyawan Chavan and Manoj Jadhav had committed theft of electricity and supplied the same to the hutment dwellers. It was further revealed that theft of electricity was committed from 6 October, 2016 to 5 April, 2017 and around 467240 units worth Rs.79,43,086/ were utilized by the accused. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this crime. He has not committed the said offence. The prosecution has relied upon the hearsay evidence which was devoid of any merits. He submitted that there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the said crime. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is involved in the said crime. This fact is evident from the statements of hutment dwellers which were recorded during the course of investigation. The witnesses have stated that the applicant and the coaccused had provided them the electricity from the said cables. He further pointed out that two other accused are absconding. He also submitted that at the earlier point of time similar FIR was registered against the applicant with same police station vide C.R No.137 of 2016. He submitted that the accused/applicant is habitual offender and is involved in such activities repeatedly and therefore the anticipatory bail application should be rejected. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into consideration the involvement of the applicant which is based on the statement of the witnesses and also looking into the fact that the applicant has earlier committed the similar offence, I am not inclined to grant this application. Hence I pass the following order; :: ORDER :: (i) Anticipatory Bail Application no.886 of 2017 is rejected. (ii) Application stands disposed of. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.15932 OF 2008 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr.V.S.Kapse for the appellant. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ DATED: 15th July, 2008. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Kapse, learned counsel for the applicant-husband. Issue notice to the respondent-wife, returnable after ten weeks. In addition, to normal mode of service, Mr.Kapse is at liberty to issue advocate's notice to the respondent but under Registered Post A.D and shall also file affidavit of service on the next date. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.171 of 2008 In Family Court Appeal Stamp No.15932 of 2008 Mr.Vinay Applicant Prahaladrai Poddar Vs. Mrs.Rachana Respondent Vinay Poddar Mr.Abhijit V. Rane i/b. Mr.V.S. Kapse for applicant. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. September 23, 2008. P.C. .Heard Mr.Rane holding for Mr.Kapse, the learned counsel for the applicant - husband. The notice issued to the respondent - wife has been returned by the postal authorities with the remark "Refused" and the postal envelope is placed on record. .This is an application praying for condonation of delay caused in filing Family Court Appeal under Stamp No.15932 of 2008. .As per the office note the appeal is beyond time by 64 days and we are satisfied that the delay caused deserves to be condoned subject to payment of costs. .Hence the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.500/- and to be remitted to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today. .List the appeal for admission on 13th October (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2011 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.93 OF 2009 Deepak Balkrishna Vahikar and another ..Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. And Devdeep Properties ..Applicant. Ms. Vrunda Surve with Ms. S.P. Potbhare i/b Mr. Priten P. Killedar for the Petitioners. Mr. Vinay A. Sonpal, A panel counsel for Respondents 1 and 4. Dr. Sadhna Mahashabde for Respondents 2 and 3 Mr. Sameer Khale for the Applicant. ...... .... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 8 July 2011. P.C. : The Applicant seeks permission to cut 2 trees. The report of the expert committee is on record. We grant permission to the Applicant subject to the following conditions: (a) The Applicant shall file a written undertaking of an authorized representative stating (i) That in compliance with the report of the expert committee, three new trees shall be planted for every existing tree to be felled; (ii) That the trees to be replanted shall be of local species; (iv)The trees which are to be replanted shall not be small saplings, but shall be half grown trees of a sufficient growth which shall ensure their survival; and (v) The Applicant shall continue to maintain the aforesaid trees for a period of two years after the transplantation or, as the case may be, uprooting of the trees. (b) A copy of the undertaking shall be supplied to the Petitioner and to the Municipal Corporation and shall be placed on the record of these proceedings within a period of two weeks from today; (c) The Tree Officer of the Pune Municipal Corporation shall be personally responsible for verifying as to whether the undertakings which have been furnished to the Court have been duly complied with. The Tree Officer shall bring to the notice of the Court any dereliction on the part of the deponent in complying with the undertaking. Subject to the undertaking being filed in the aforesaid terms and conditional thereon, the Civil Application is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6504 OF 2004 Mohammed Maqbool Khan. .. Petitioner (Org.Defendant) Vs. Shaikh Riaysat Ali Driver. .. Respondent (Org.Plaintiff) -- Shri A.A.Mirza & N.Y.Shaikh for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Dani with Shri J.S.Yadav for the respondent. -- CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J DATED : 26th OCTOBER, 2004. P.C. Heard. The petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree which was passed against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 26th July, 2000. However, instead of taking up the matter on 26th July, 2000, it was taken up for hearing on 25th July, 2000, and thereafter it was adjourned to 20th September, 2000. But, the trial Court disposed of the matter on 11th August, 2000 itself i.e. much prior to the date fixed for hearing of the matter. The contention of the petitioner is that on 26th July, 2000, the petitioner's advocate appeared in the Court but having been informed by the clerk of the advocate that the matter was adjourned to 20th September, 2000, he did not attend the hearing of the matter which took place subsequent to the 26th July, 2000 i.e. much prior to 20th September, 2000. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the petitioner's contention in this regard while observing that the records do not disclose that the advocate for the petitioner himself having attended the Court either on 26th July, 2000 or any other date thereafter. Undisputedly, no steps were taken by the petitioner and his advocate to record their presence in the Court on 26th July, 2000, neither any application was filed for taking the matter on board on 26th July, 2000 if the matter was not listed for hearing on the same day on the board of the trial Court, nor attention was drawn of the trial Court regarding the appearance of the petitioner and his advocate in the Court on 26th July, 2000. It is not also the case of the petitioner that steps were taken to verify the adjourned date of hearing of the matter either on 26th July, 2000 or any time thereafter till 20th September, 2000. In case, the petitioner was genuinely interested in contesting the matter, certainly knowing well that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 25th July, 2000 or 26th July, 2000 as alleged by the petitioner, for regarding of evidence, he would have certainly verified as to what had happened on 25th July, 2000 in order to avoid the consequence of ex part proceeding against the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner did not bother to know anything about the proceedings which had taken place on 25th July, 2000 even though he claims to have appeared in the Court on 26th July, 2004. In the circumstances, therefore, both the Courts below having arrived at the concurrent findings regarding failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the reason for absence in the Court on the date when the matter was disposed of ex parte, no fault can be found with the said findings, nor the same warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction as it cannot be said that the Courts below have exercised their discretion either arbitrarily or illegally, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Being so, the petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. _____ 4 -