All Cases

Order - Status 11: ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 536 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R.M.Haridas for the Applicant. Mr. N.P.Dalvi for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th December, 2011. P.C. . The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant seeks permission to withdraw the revision application. Hence, the revision application is dismissed as withdrawn. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2164 OF 2024 The State of Maharashtra. … ------------------- Respondent V/s. Aslam @ Gondiya Hamid Mulla Applicant. Shri Farzan Shaikh i/b Kamil Sayyed, Advocate for Applicant. Shri Shreeram S. Chaudhari, APP for the State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2024. PC: Heard. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 08/07/2024. The learned A.P.P. waives notice for the Respondent-State. RAJIV BABARAOJI RAUT Digitally signed by RAJIV BABARAOJI RAUT Date: 2024.06.14 14:49:18 +0530 (ANIL S. KILOR, J)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2164 OF 2024 Aslam @ Gondiya Hamid Mulla APPLICANT V/S 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 29/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2164 OF 2024 Aslam @ Gondiya Hamid Mulla, Age 34 years, Occ.Service, R/o.Hazarmachi, Tal.Karad, Dist.Satara. (Presently in Satara District Prison) Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.Sameer M.Mangaonkar, APP, for State. Mr.Mahesh B.Shinde, P.C, Karad City Police, present. CORAM : ANIL S.KILOR, J. DATE : 21st August 2024 PC : Heard. By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.1191 of 2023 registered with Karad City Police Station, District Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for Applicant submits that there are discrepancies in the CCTV footage transcription and the statements of witnesses. It is submitted that the first informant did not name the Applicant. The FIR was registered against total 10 accused, out of which four were known and six unknown accused persons. It is submitted that version of the eye witness is doubtful and since charge sheet has been filed, further custody of the Applicant is not necessary. Accordingly he prays for grant of bail. MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2024.08.22 18:12:26 +0530 Learned APP strongly opposed the application and grant of bail. I have gone through the charge sheet and relevant material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is evident that seeing the CCTV footage the Applicant was identified by the eye witness and there is sufficient evidence to show that at the time of incidence Applicant was present with other co-accused. The CCTV footage shows that the accused persons were assaulting the deceased. The allegations are of unlawful assembly with common intention. In the circumstances though there may be some discrepancies in the CCTV footage transcription and the statement of witness, however, presence of the Applicant at the spot with common intention cannot be prima facie disputed in view of sufficient incriminating material against the Applicant. In the circumstances since the offence is very serious, I do not find the present case as a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly it is rejected. Trial is expedited. Liberty is granted to move afresh before Trial Court after one year, if there is no progress in trial. Learned counsel for Applicant undertakes to place this order on the record of Trial Court within two weeks from today. (ANIL S.KILOR, J.) MST

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

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

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

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

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

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2008 Dr. Gyanendra S.N. Singh .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.K.S. Patil for the applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with the offence registered with Jogeshwari Police Station, Mumbai under C.R. No.196/2007 punishable under section 498-A, 323, 506, 504, 379, 377 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier application made by the applicant to the Sessions Court (Application No.24/2008) for bail has been rejected by an order dated 18th January 2008. The complainant is the wife of Arvind Pawar. The applicant is a friend of Arvind Pawar. In the FIR lodged by the complainant on 5th November 2007, she alleged that the complainant and her husband lived together for 5-6 months after the marriage. Thereafter there were quarrels between them. Hence she left the house. Thereafter her husband has been harassing her and on 1st October 2007 Arvind along with his three friends including the present applicant came to her house, assaulted her and took away gold mangalsutra weighing about 1 tola and 2 gold bangles weighing about 2 1/2 tolas. The complainant further alleges that in the past her husband had unnatural intercourse with her though she had not informed this to anyone. There is no allegation that the applicant is in any way concerned with the act of unnatural intercourse allegedly committed by the husband. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in assuming that the present applicant is also a party to the unnatural offence punishable under section 379 of the I.P.C. The only allegation against the applicant is that he accompanied the husband of the complainant on 1st October 2007 when she was allegedly robbed of one gold mangalsutra and 2 gold bangles. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the incident. There is a delay of more than a month in lodging the FIR after the alleged robbing. In the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the offence mentioned above, he shall be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the condition that the applicant shall not make any contact with the complainant and shall not in any way make any inducement or threat to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall attend the concerned police station as and when summoned by the police for the purpose of interrogation/ investigation. This order shall come to an end after the charge sheet is filed whereupon the applicant, if he so desires, may apply for regular bail before the regular court. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2008 Shri Abdul Rahim Tantray. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. S.V.Kotwal i/b. S.S.Bhandary for the applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 2nd May 2008. P.C.: ---- . Heard. Perused record. The relaxation sought to be prayed by the applicant was already granted under order dated 1st February, 2008. The applicant has availed the benefit of that order. There cannot be successive relaxation in every alternate month. Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE

Order - Status 5: RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date: 2022.01.25 16:14:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2022 Ganesh Milind Todkari ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Ritesh M. Thobde for the Applicant. Mr. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2022 (Through Video Conferencing) P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The applicant has impugned the order dated 29th December, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by which, the learned Judge was pleased to issue non-bailable warrant as against the applicant. The applicant has also impugned another order of the same date i.e. 29th December, 2021, by which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, rejected the applicant's application seeking anticipatory bail, on the ground, that the said application was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there were sufficient grounds made out by the applicant for cancellation of the nonbailable warrant as well as for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned APP vehemently opposes the application. He submitted that the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant, pursuant to the issuance of non-bailable warrant was not maintainable and as such, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. He submits that it was always open for the applicant to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant, issued by the Trial Court, as against the applicant. Perused the papers. From the order dated 29th December, 2021, it appears that on the said date, despite repeated calls, neither the accused nor his Advocate is present. The learned Judge observed that the evidence cannot be recorded in the absence of the applicant/accused and as such, issued non-bailable warrant to the applicant/accused and notice to the surety. After the non-bailable warrant was issued, another application was filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail application. Learned Judge, after observing that the bail bond has been forfeited and non-bailable warrant has already been issued and hence, the application seeking anticipatory bail was not maintainable and accordingly, rejected the same. As far as the order dated 29th December, 2021 is concerned, the observation of the learned Judge in the said order that, an anticipatory bail application was not maintainable, cannot be faulted with, inasmuch as, the applicant ought to have filed an application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant instead of filing an application seeking anticipatory bail. Without going into the merits, for the reasons for nonappearance of the applicant/accused on the said date i.e. on 29th December, 2021, liberty is granted to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued to the applicant. If an application is filed seeking cancellation of the nonbailable warrant issued by the Trial Court on 29th December, 2021, the learned Judge to consider the same on its own merits after hearing the parties. Leaned APP also has no objection if the applicant is permitted to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of his non-bailable warrant before the Trial Court. The application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the application and as such, all contentions of the applicant are kept open. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1367 OF 2012 Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka Appellant/Orig. accused vs. Union of India & Anr. Respondents Mr.Atul Sarpande, Advocate for the appellant. Y.N.Katpitia, Addl. P.P. For Union of India Ms. A.T.Jhaveri,APP,for the respondent-State CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 12th April,2013. P.C. Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks leave to add documents. Leave as prayed for is granted. S.O. to 30.4.2013. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1367 OF 2012 Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka Applicant/Accused vs. Union of India & Anr. Respondents Mr. Atul Sarpande i/b. Atul Sarpande & Associates,Advocate for the applicant. Ms.Y.N.Katpitia, Addl. P.P. For the Union of India. Ms. P.P.Shinde, APP,for the respondent-State CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 12th July, 2013 P.C. The paper book be expedited. The paper book along with R & P shall be called for within a period of six weeks from today. The Counsel for the applicant is at liberty to file private paper book and mention the matter. The application for bail be heard along with the appeal. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1367 OF 2012 Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka .. Applicant Vs. Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents None for the Applicant. Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez a/w. Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 – UOF. Ms. S. V. Sonawane, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2 – State. …. …. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 12, 2014. P.C. : None present for the applicant in this application for bail during the pendency of the criminal Appeal. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 – Union of India stated that in the present matter, the appointment of the another counsel has not been continued and as such the matter may be adjourned for about three weeks so by that time the position would be clear whether said another counsel Mrs. Y. N. Katpitia would represent the Union of India or not. 2 Stand over to 20th February, 2014. (A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 28th MARCH, 2014. P.C. On account of paucity of time, the following matters on the daily board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per CMIS: ....... Sr. Nos. Assigned Dates 9 02/05/2014 12 22/07/2014 13, 14, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 07/04/2014 15 22/08/2014 16, 17, 44, 45, 46, 50 11/04/2014 18, 19 22/09/2014 20, 23 23/09/2014 24, 25, 47, 48 08/04/2014 If any adinterim or interim relief granted in any of the above said matters, is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective assigned dates. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. COMMON ORDER. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 02.05.2014 P.C. On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under : Sr. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 15, 15, 16, 17 17 03/07/14 18 13/06/14 21 04/07/14 22 15/09/14 23, 35, 44, 24, 36, 46, 25, 37, 47, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 30, 40, 32, 41, 33, 42, 34, 43, 09/06/14 28 26/09/14 29 10/06/14 45 21/11/14 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 fixed in the matters. If adinterim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. The original of this order be kept in Sr.NO.15, Criminal Application No.66 of 2013 (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. COMMON ORDER. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 07.07.2014 P.C. On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under : Sr. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 31, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40. 34, 35, 38, 39, 40. 18/07/14 37 08/08/14 42 25/08/14 45 20/08/14 47, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 51, 53. 49, 50, 51, 51, 53. 21/07/14 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 fixed in the matters. If adinterim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. The original of this order be kept in Sr.No.31, Criminal Application No.835 of 2014. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J )

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: AUGUST 8, 2014. P.C.: On account of paucity of time, the following matters on the daily board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per CMIS: Sr. Nos. Assigned Dates 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 34, 906 20/08/2014 22 to 24 29/09/2014 25, 26, 46 30/09/2014 47, 48, 49 22/08/2014 27, 28, 40 to 43, 45 26/08/2014 29 20/08/2014 30 12/01/2015 31 13/01/2015 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44 21/08/2014 33 19/01/2015 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in any of the above said matters, is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective assigned dates. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 26: Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 66 of 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1367 of 2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders. Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders None for the appellant. Shri Ajay Patil, A.P.P.for the State. Ms Rebecca Gonsalves for Union of India. CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATE : 27th October, 2014. P.C. This is an application for bail during the pendency of the appeal. The accused has challenged conviction under NDPS Act. Bail application was earlier directed to be heard along with appeal. Specific directions were passed by this Court vide order dated 12th July,2013 for expediting preparation of paper book and calling of R & P. As such the matter be placed on final hearing board as per its turn. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) 1 of 1

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1367 OF 2012 Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka ....Appellant V/S Union Of India And Anr ....Respondent WITH CR. APPLICATION IN APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2013 In CR. APPEAL 1367 OF 2012 Jude Okonkwo Chukwuemeka ....Appellant V/S Union Of India And Anr ....Respondent None For Appellant Mr.V.V.Gangurde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 26th February, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to12/03/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1750 OF 2006 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. Mr. Ramesh Vaja Rabari & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the applicants-State. None for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & D. B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : 12TH APRIL, 2007. P.C.: - Heard Mr. Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the applicants. As a last chance, time to complete the investigation is extended by three weeks from today i.e. till 3/5/2007. Criminal application is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [D. B. BHOSALE, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3719 OF 2003 IN CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 360 OF 2003 Mr. Rajesh Kisanchand Agarwal. ... Applicant. V/s. Vinay Ramchandra Kulkarni and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.R. Agarkar for the Applicant. Ms. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. :- Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that Criminal Revision Application No.360 of 2003 has been disposed of and consequently, the present Application is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, Criminal Application No.3719 of 2003 is dismissed as infructuous. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)