All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna D Joshi For Applicant Mrs.P.P. Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 5th January, 2018 P.C. : Learned APP waives service and seeks time to take instructions. Time as prayed for is granted. Stand over to 10/01/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna D Joshi For Applicant Ms.Veera Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 10th January, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 29/01/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 Shri Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Virendra Pethe i/b Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the applicant. Mr. S.R.Agarkar,APP, for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd January, 2018. P.C. : It is submitted that the applicant No.2 has been detected with malignant tumor. The report of Tata Memorial Centre dated 4.1.2018 indicates that the liver lesio biopsy was taken. Biopsy shows high grade malignant tumor. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would give the photocopies of the report to the learned APP during the course of the day. The learned APP to take instructions to that effect. The matter to be listed on 29.1.2018. (SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna Joshi for Applicant Ms.Veera Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 29th January, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 07/02/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 7th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 12/02/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 12th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 27/02/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J DATE : 27th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 05/03/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: Sarnobat IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 Shri Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors.... Applicants.Vs.... Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 03 OF 2018. Vijay Pundalik Patil. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. .. Respondent. Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi for the Applicants in ABA No. 01/18. Mr. Anoop U. Patil, for the Applicant in ABA No. 03/18. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State. $frac{text{CORAM}}{text{DATE}} : underline{P. N. DESHMUKH, J.}$ P. C. : Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per telephonic instructions, applicant No. 1 is arrested on 1 st March, 2018. Learned counsel for applicants is not aware of the said fact. Learned counsel for applicant No. 3 submits that applicant has provided his bank accounts with the Investigating Officer and that applicant No. 2 is not arrested in view of oral directions of this Court being a Cancer patient. This statement is also made by Additional (13(14)ABA118 ABA318 Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the applicant in ABA No. 03/2018 submits that as per oral directions of this Court, applicant has submitted his accounts and that his bank accounts are freezed and therefore, submits that applicant be protected by interim protection. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks time for want of instructions as I.O. is not present. Record reveals that notice is issued to Respondent on 5th January, 2018 and time was granted to file affidavit in reply which was further extended on 10th January, 2018 and 29th January, 2018 and thereafter on three occasions, application came to be adjourned for want of time. In these circumstances, as further time is granted to file affidavit in reply, following order is passed. ORDER (i) In the event of arrest of applicant Nos. 1 and 3 in ABA No.01/2018 and applicant in ABA No. 03/2018, in Crime No. 396/2017 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nasik, they shall be released on bail on their executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. (ii) The above applicants shall attend Investigating Officer for a period of one week from 8th March, 2018. 2/3 (13(14)ABA118 ABA318 (iii) ABA No. 03/2018 be heard along with this application. (iv) Stand over to 19th March, 2018. [ P. N. DESHMUKH , J.]

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. … Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 3 OF 2018 Vijay Pundalik Patil … Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent *** Mr. Virendra Pethe i/b Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the Applicants in ABA. 1/2018. Mr. Anoop Patil, for Applicant in ABA. 3/2018. *** Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2018 PC :- . Learned counsel for Applicants submits that Applicant / accused No.1 in ABA No. 1/2018 was arrested on 1st March, 2018. Learned counsel further submits that Applicant No. 3 for want of knowledge of order dated 5th March, 2018 since not communicated by his counsel has not attended investigating officer for a period of one week from 8th March, 2018. None appears for Applicant No. 1 in ABA. No. 3/2018. Applicant No. 3 in ABA. No. 1/2018 to attend Investigating Officer for a period of one week and shall co-operate with the investigation. S. O. to 2nd April, 2018. Interim order to continue till next date.

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTI.BAIL APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam 2. Anil Navnath Shinde 3. Sarangdhar Yadav Pansare .. Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent with ANTI.BAIL APPLICATION NO.03 OF 2018 Vijay Pundalik Patil .. Applicant vs 1. State of Maharasjtra 2.The Sarkarwada Police Stn. Dist Nasik .. Respondents Nr.Balkrishna D.Joshi for Applicants in ABA NO.01/2018 Mr.Anoop U.Patil for Applicant in ABA No.3/2018 Mr.Sandeep Barve for Intervener Ms.Veera Shinde Addl.Public Prosecutor for State CORAM : P. N.DESHMUKH,, J. DATE : 2ND APRIL, 2018. P.C.: Learned counsel Mr.Sandeep Barve submits that he be granted one week's time to file an application to intervene in this application. In that view of the matter, stand over to 11.4.2018. Interim orders to continue till the adjourned date. (P.N.DESHMUKH, J.) rng

Order - Status 27: Sarnobat IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. Respondent. Mr. Virendra Pethe i/by Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the Applicants. Mr. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 11th APRIL, 2018. P. C. : Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant No.1 Vijay Ramdas Nikam is already arrested and as such submits that application be allowed to be withdrawn against him as same is rendered infructuous and further contended that applicant No. 2-Anil Navnath Shinde has expired as he was suffering from Cancer. Learned APP on instructions from investigating officer confirms the same. Learned counsel submits that applicant No. 3-Sarangdhar Yadav Pansare do not want to prosecute this application and on his instruction seeks leave to withdraw the said application. In view of submissions advanced as aforesaid, application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 stand disposed of, as application filed by applicant No.1 is rendered infructuous, since arrested, and applicant No. 2 is dead. Application of applicant No. 3 is allowed to be withdrawn as prayed for and as such stands dismissed. Anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. In view of above, application No. 430/2018 for intervention is become infructuous and accordingly disposed of. [ P. N. DESHMUKH , J.]

Order - Status 7: ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6006 OF 2011 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nasik .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mahesh Agawekar i/b Ms.Anamik Malhotra for the petitioner Mr.P.G.Sawant 'B' Panel for respondent no.1 Mr.J.D.Khairnar for respondent no.2 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 1st AUGUST, 2011 PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, matter is taken for final hearing and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner original respondent challenges the order dt. 6.5.2011 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik, below Ex.U2 filed by respondent no.2 for interim relief to stay the operation and implementation of transfer order dt. 16.12.2010 issued by the petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik. Respondent no.2 is working with the petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik as Desk Officer. Initially, on account of misconduct he was suspended by order dt.1.9.2010. Thereafter, respondent no.2 made representation to the petitioner. Considering respondent no.2's representation, petitioner issued the order dt. 15.12.2010 reinstating respondent no.2 in his original post subject to departmental enquiry. Thereafter, on the next date, petitioner issued transfer order dt.16.12.2010 transferring respondent no.2 on said post to Panchayat Samiti, Surgana. Respondent no.2 joined their as Desk Officer and worked for 4/5 months. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint (ULP) No.108 of 2011 before the Industrial Court under Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 along with application for interim relief under section 30(2). In the said complaint, respondent no.2 contended that he is suffering 40% disability and same is declared by the Medical Board as per certificate dt.3.3.2005. Thereafter, on the basis of Government Resolution dt.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004, he is entitled to be posted near his home town i.e. at Nasik. The said interim application was allowed by leaned Member, Industrial Court by impugned order dt.6.5.2011 and directed petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik to allow respondent no.2 to work at Nasik or near Nasik as per Government Resolution No.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004. Hence, the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Member of Industrial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that respondent no.2 by way of interim relief is entitled to stay the operation and implementation of the transfer order dt. 16.12.2010. He further submits that initially respondent no.2 was suspended on 1.9.2010 and thereafter, considering his applications, they reinstated him on his original post by order dt.15.12.2010 subject to departmental enquiry. He further submits that departmental enquiry is going on against respondent no.2. He further submits that initially respondent no.2 joined the services as per transfer order dt.16.12.2010 at Panchayat Samiti, Surgana without complaining about his disability and thereafter, filed complaint (ULP) No.108 of 2011. He submits that the main complaint is pending for hearing and final disposal. The Industrial Court by interim relief allowed indirectly prayer in the main complaint itself. Therefore, impugned order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik, dt.6.5.11 is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the present petition. He submits that as per Government Resolution dt.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004 respondent no.2 is entitled to the posting near his home town. He submits that respondent no.2 has his house at Nasik. Since beginning he has stayed there. He submits that the Village Surgana is about 50 to 60 kms from Nasik and therefore, it is very difficult for him to attend his duty there. He submits that after joining at Surgana he noticed that due to 40% disability he is facing several difficulties and therefore, he preferred the present complaint. I have gone through the G.R. dt.15.4.04 and 15.12.04. I have also gone through the reinstatement letter dt.15.12.2010 and transfer order dt.16.12.2010. It is to be noted that initially respondent no.2 was suspended in the year 2010. On his request, petitioner reinstated him on 15.10.10 subject to departmental enquiry. Not only that his main complaint challenging the transfer order dt.15.12.2010 is pending. By interim relief learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik indirectly allowed the respondent no.2's main complaint itself. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik erred in staying operation and implementation of the Tribunal's order dt.16.12.2010 directing petitioner Zilla Parishad, Nasik to allow respondent no.2 to work at Nasik or near Nasik as per G.R. dt.15.4.2010 and 15.12.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that at present, no post is available at Nasik or near Nasik. Considering these facts, the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik below Exh.U2 in complaint ULP 108 o 2010 is set aside. 10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, hearing of complaint (ULP) No. 108 of 2011 is expedited. 11.Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED,J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 802 OF 2014 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 16754 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. P. R. Moses for the applicant. Mr. S.k. Sonawane for the respondent corporation. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 30/07/2014. P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 This civil application is preferred by original plaintiff for condonation of 35 days delay in filing the Appeal From Order against the Order dated 27.03.2014 passed by Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai in draft Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No. 804 of 2014. 3 Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and averment made in civil application, I am satisfied that applicant has made out the case for allowing the civil application. 4 Hence, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 10(i), which reads thus: "(i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 35 days in filing the present application." 5 Civil application is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.208 OF 2007 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.69 OF 2001 Warsha...Applicant @ Elee Naren B. Goregaonkar V/s. Naren...Respondent Bhagwant Rao Goregaonkar Mr.Anshuman Jagtap, Advocate, h/f. Jyoti N. Shah, for the applicant. Ms.Shilpa Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM : J.N. PATEL & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2007. P.C.: 1.The applicant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.1,47,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon. 2.The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.A. SAYED, J.] [J.N. PATEL, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1153 OF 2004 Shri Ramchandra Krishnaji Shelke (since deceased, through legal heirs) Ankush Ramchandra Shelke 7 ors. ... Appellants V/s Shri Laxman Krishnaji Shelke & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sachin Chavan holding for Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the appellants. None for the respondents. ALONGWITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2005 Shri Laxman Krishnaji Shelke & ors. ... Appellants V/s Ramchandra Krishnaji Shelke (since deceased, through his L.Rs.) 1(a) Sonabai Ramchandra Shelke & ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.A. Udgikar for the appellants. None for the respondents. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2005 P.C.: Both appeals are being heard and disposed of by this common order as they arise out of common judgment passed by the Trial Court in R.C.S. No.18 of 1989 and was disposed of by the appellate Court by order dated 5.4.2004 with certain modifications in the lower Court's order. The plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 had referred R.C.A. No. 58 of 1993 and R.C.A. No. 58 of 1993 against the judgment passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit for the partition of the lower appellate Court and disposed of both appeals by common judgment, whereas Regular Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1993 by original defendant No.1 claiming for certain properties in the suit for self-acquired property was dismissed. Whereas, plaintiff's Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1993 was partly allowed with modification with regard to the quantum of share of the respective parties. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals. Perused the record. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession to the extent of 1/3 share from the suit properties bearing Gat Nos. 77, 435, 1450, 236/1 and 1615 of Village Paragaon, Tal. Daund on the ground 2 that those were ancestral properties and he had 1/3 share therein. Defendants contested the suit inter-alia submitting that part of the suit properties was their self-acquired property. It was also contended that there was previous partition in the year 1964 with regard to certain properties involved in the suit and, therefore, their properties cannot be the subject matter to the partition as prayed for and sought dismissal of the suit. The learned Trial Judge adjudicated the dispute on merits and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that he had 1/3 share in the suit properties Gat No.77, 435, 1450 and 1615 of Village Paragaon, Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune and hence he also held that defendants 1 and 6 are also entitled for their 1/3 share from the suit properties and decreed the suit. The appeal was carried to the District Court at Baramati. The learned Addil. District Judge, after hearing both parties came to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the defendant No.1 was liable to be dismissed as he did not prove part of the suit properties as he did not prove that part of the suit 3 property was self-acquired property and modified the decree in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the extent that instead of 1/3 share, it was held that party had 1/5 share therein and disposed of the appeal. Hence the present appeal. At the outset, it may be noted that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 submitted that he was serving Post & Telegraph Department and had purchased suit property Gat No.77, 435 and 1450 for his own income for consideration of his being Karta and, therefore, those properties were self-acquired properties. However, both the Courts below have found absolutely no evidence in support of this contention raised on behalf of the appellant-defendant No.1 and his plea to that extent was dismissed. On the other hand, the plaintiff came with the case that defendant had relinquished his share in the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiff would get 1/3 share in the suit properties. However, the lower appellate Court found that there is absolutely no evidence of relinquishment of his suit properties to 4 defendant No.7 and, as such, the plea of the plaintiff that he had 1/3 share in the suit properties was rejected and it was held that parties have 1/5 share in the suit property and, and as such the decree was modified and appeal was allowed. In view of this factual matrix, there is absolutely no reason to disturb the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court in both appeals as they are based on factual aspects of the evidence and, as such, I hold that both appeals are devoid of any merits and hence both appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, Civil Application No. 1607 of 2004 in Second Appeal No. 1153 of 2004 also stands dismissed with no order as to costs. .....

Order - Status 4: 519.BA.2153.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2153 OF 2022 Rajesh Dagadu Salave Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Shailesh Chavan, Advocate for applicant. Mr.A.A.Palkar, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 11th October 2022 PC : Not on board. Taken on board. Learned APP seeks time to file affidavit-in-reply. Reply be filed before next date of hearing. Stand over to 22nd November 2022. High on board. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST Digitally signed by MANISH SURESH THATTE Date: 2022.10.13 11:49:45 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2153 OF 2022 Rajesh Dagadu Salave ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 22nd November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 08/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2153 OF 2022 Rajesh Dagadu Salave APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr. Shailesh Chavan Adv. for Applicant Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for Respondent - State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 19th December, 2022 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP, stand over to 13/01/2023 . Ad-interim/ Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2153 OF 2022 Rajesh Dagadu Salave ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shailesh Chavan Adv. for Applicant Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for Respondent - State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 13th January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: 41-ba-2153-22.doc DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2023.04.22 16:58:53 +0500 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2153 OF 2022 Rajesh D. Salave …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr. Shailesh Chavan a/w. Mr. Sachin Arade for the Applicant. Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 06.02.2023. P.C. : This is an application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for bail. The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.459 of 2021 registered at Manchar Police Station, Pune (Rural) for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOC Act). I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent – State. According to the prosecution, there was an enmity between the deceased and the co-accused Santosh Jadhav, who according to the prosecution, is a member of organized crime syndicates formed by co-accused Pawan Thorat. It is alleged that they thus hatched the conspiracy and committed the murder of the deceased on 1 August 2021. The allegations against the present applicant are that prior to the alleged incident, he gave Rs.2000/- to one of the gang member on the instructions of gang leader and even promised him to bear the expenses for their bail after the alleged incident. There appears to be no enmity between the deceased and the present applicant. Prima facie, the applicant appears to have provided or promised to provide fnancial help due to fear. The learned APP submits that in view of presumption under Section 22 of the MCOC Act, the applicant may not be released on bail. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances and as there are no other criminal antecedents, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. In the result, the following order is passed. O R D E R A] Bail Application is allowed. B] The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.459 of 2021 registered at Manchar Police Station, Pune (Rural) for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) on furnishing P.R Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one or two sureties in the like amount. C] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a month, i.e., on frst Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.7727 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Office NOtes, Office Court or Judge's Order Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------- Shri T.B.Bhosale for petitioner. CORAM: A.P.SHAH J. 14th October,2005 P.C. . Issue notice before admission to the respondents retutrnable on 28th November, 2005. Notice to indicate that the petition shall be disposed of at the admission stage. . Notice of the State Govt. to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court (Appellate Side,Writ Cell) Bombay.

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 16416 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 21 NOVEMBER 2016 Three weeks time i.e. 13.12.2016 is granted to remove office objections. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 21.11.2016

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.16416 OF 2016 Mrs. Janaki Subhash Sawant Petitioner Versus District Superintendent Land Record and others Respondents Mr. P. G. Kathane for the Petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 30th NOVEMBER, 2016 P.C. 1 Heard Mr. P. G. Kathane, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 11.01.2017. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Petitioner shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery on the Respondents and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3 The principal contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the consolidation proceedings are sought to be reopened after a period of 45 years. The parties are put to notice that in view of the narrow controversy involved the Petition may be heard and disposed of (905)-WPST-16416-16.doc*.* finally at the admission stage. In the meantime, there would be adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (c). [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 16416 OF 2016 Mrs. Janaki Subhash Sawant ....Petitioner V/S District Superintendent Land Record, Sangli And Ors ....Respondent Mr. Pramod Gokul Kathane, for Petitioner. Mr. Manoj Ganpat Sawardekar, for R.No. 4A to 4K. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP, for R.Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Bharat A. Punekar, R.No. 3. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 22nd February, 2017 P.C. : S.O. to 8th March 2017 for admission. To be placed on supplementary board. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, to continue until then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 16416 OF 2016 Mrs. Janaki Subhash Sawant ....Petitioner V/S District Superintendent Land Record, Sangli And Ors ....Respondent Ms Anusha A Kale i/b Shri Pramod Gokul Kathane For Petitioner Shri Akshay Bobade i/b Shri Bharat A Punekar R.no. 3 Shri S D Rayrikar, AGP R.no. 1 And 2 CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 8th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 10/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: wpst1641616(908) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION St. NO. 16416 OF 2016 Mrs. Janaki Subhash Sawant ..Petitioner Vs. District Superintendent Land Record Sangli & Ors ..Respondents Ms Arusha A Kale i/b Mr. P. G. Kathane for the Petitioner Mr. M. G. Sawardekar for the Respondent Nos.4A to 4E Mr. S. H. Kankal AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. Akshay Bobade for the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 10th MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to amend so as to annex a typed copy of the impugned order. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out within one week. List the Petition for admission on 2132017, to be shown on the supplementary board. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3333 OF 2017 Mrs Janaki Subhash Sawant ..Petitioner Vs. District Superintendent Land Record, Sangli & Ors ..Respondents Mr. P. G. Kathane for the Petitioner Mr. S. D. Rayrikar AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. M. G. Sawardekar for the Respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(f) Mr. Akshay Bobade a/w Mr/ B. A. Punekar for the Respondent Nos.3, 5(a) to 5(f), 6(a) to 6(e) CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 21st MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 212016 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Sangli, by which order the application for condonation of delay filed by the Respondent No.3 came to be allowed. The said order has been challenged on the ground that the District Superintendent of Land Record has condoned the delay merely on the ground that the principles of natural justice require that such delay is required to be condoned. The District Superintendent of Land Record has not come to a conclusion that the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 have shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay running into 45 years for discretion to be exercised in favour of the said Respondents. The application filed by the said Respondent No.3 was in respect of correcting the consolidation scheme which has been implemented in Village Bhose, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli, as long back as in the year 1965. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 are the sons of one Dashrath Bandgar who had two other sons namely Laxman Dashrath Bandgar and Bhauso Dashrath Bandgar. It seems that Laxman and Bhauso have expired and their heirs are the Respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(f) and Respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(e) to the above Petition. However, the statements of the sons of the said Dashrath Bandgar were recorded before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year 1965 and it is the case of the Petitioner that the consolidation scheme was propounded on the basis of the said statement which was recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 2 The Learned Counsel for the parties i.e. Mr. Kathane for the Petitioner and Mr. Bobade for the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 sought to make submissions against and for condonation of delay. 3 In my view, it is not necessary to delve into the said aspect since the District Superintendent of Land Records, Sangli has without coming to a conclusion that sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been made out by the Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 has condoned the said huge delay of 45 years. In my view, the interest of justice would be served if the impugned order dated 212016 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli for a denovo consideration of the application for condondation of delay. The parties may file additional pleadings if so advised before the District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli. The parties to appear before the District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli on 542017. The District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli thereafter may decide the application for condonation of delay by 155 2017 on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the instant order. Needless to state that the contentions of the parties are kept open for being urged before the District Superintendent of Land Records Sangli. 4 The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and is disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 7: 1 1p.aba173.143.15.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 173 OF 2015 Shekhar Bhagwanrao Gore .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Arvind Gyanchand Bansal and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 129 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Arvind Gyanchand Bansal and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2015 Rakesh Tikaram Vishwakarma and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 128 OF 2015 IN Talwalkar 1/3 2 1p.aba173.143.15.sxw CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Rakesh Tikaram Vishwakarma and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2015 A. Parthiban and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN A. Parthiban and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Smt. Shubhangi Sandip Yadav. ….Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ….Respondent. ….. Talwalkar 2/3 Mr. Prashant Patil, advocate for Applicant in ABA 173 of 2015. Ms. Veera Shinde APP for the State. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, advocate for applicant in APPP 41/16 in ABA 143/15. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 P.C.: 1 Not on board. Upon production taken on board. 2 This is for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 26/2/2015. In second line of paragraph5 of the order, the name "Sandeep mane" be read as "Sandip Uttam Yadav". Corrections be carried out accordingly. 3 In view of the above order correcting the order dated 26/2/2015, the Criminal Application No. 41 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J) Talwalkar 3/3