All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 :­ APPLICANTS :­ RESPONDENTS :- Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC for the Applicants. Mr. Pravin Kamble, for Respondent Nos. 2A, 2C to 2E. Mr. Mohan B. Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6B. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2013 P.C. : Heard Mr. Agnel Carneivo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Issue notice to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B, returnable on 12th July, 2013. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Applicants may serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 Nozer Sheriyar Mazda and Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat and Ors. : Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2001 Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC, for the Applicants. Mr. Anup Lahoti, for Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3). Mr. Pravin V. Kamble, with Mr. Sharan Patole, for Respondent Nos. 2A to 2E in Second Appeal. Mr. Samrat K. Shinde, i/b. Mr. Tejas Deshpande, for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Mr. S. P. Joshi, for Respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2013 P.C. : At the request of Shri. Lahoti appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3), adjourned to 23rd July, 2013. The parties to note that no further adjournment would be granted. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 12: can-20-13.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.288 of 2008 Nozer Shriyar Mazda & Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat & Ors. : Respondents Mr. Agnel Carneivo i/b Mulla & Mulla CBC for the Applicants Mr. Mohan Jadhav for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6(B) Mr. Pravin Kamble for the Respondent Nos.2A, 2C to 2E Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 CORAM: R M SAVANT, J DATED : 23rd JULY, 2013. P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed for bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record who are the Respondent Nos.2B1 to 2B3. In so far as the said heirs are concerned, they are represented by Mr. Lahoti whose appearance is shown on the cause list. The above Civil Application had appeared on 1972013 when at the request of Mr. Lahoti it was specifically adjourned for today, however today Mr. Lahoti has not appeared though the matter has been called out twice. This Court had made it clear on the last occasion that no further adjournment would be granted. The cause for filing the above Civil Application so as to join the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) as party Respondent is to facilitate the execution of the cancellation deed for cancelling the sale deed dated 217 2006. The Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E) have executed the sale deed dated 2162006 in favour of the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 which according to the Petitioners in the above Contempt Petition is in breach and violation of the order dated 2812002 passed in the above Second Appeal, by which order the parties were directed not to create third party rights in respect of the suit property. When the above Contempt Petition had come up before a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 2642013, the Learned Judge was informed by the parties that the Respondent Nos.2(A) to 2(E) would execute a cancellation deed cancelling the said sale deed dated 2172006, the order passed on the said day discloses that a draft of the cancellation deed was also produced before the Court. Since the Respondent No.2(B) has expired after the said sale deed was executed, the cancellation deed cannot be effectively executed without bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record. As indicated above inspite of the matter being adjourned at the request of Mr. Lahoti, no appearance is put up for the heirs today. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed, resultantly the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) i.e. Respondent No.2B1, 2B2 and 2B3 are allowed to be brought on record of the Contempt Petition. Amendment can-20-13.sxw to be carried out within one week. Amended copy to be served on the concerned Advocates. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. 2 The parties have also agreed to cancel the partition deed between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E), it seems that an undertaking to that effect was given before this Court which has been recorded in the order dated 2232013. 3 Since the impediment of the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) being not on record has now been removed. It is expected of the parties that they would execute the deed of cancellation of the sale deed as well as the deed of cancellation of the unregistered partition deed within one week of the time elapsing for carrying out the amendment, and report to this Court on the next date. The Contempt Petition is adjourned to 13th August, 2013. (R M SAVANT, J)

Order - Status 8: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2016 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1142 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Applicant Vs. 1. Shri Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Devendranath S. Joshi, Advocate for applicant. CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH 2019 P.C. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2016 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 4th June 2019. Hamdast granted. Private service is permitted. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1142 OF 2016 1 The learned counsel for the applicantinsurer makes a statement that that the applicantinsurer will deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest and costs as awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai by the impugned order dated 6th February 2015 in Application (ECA) No. 4/C3/2009. 2 The statement made by the learned counsel for the applicantinsurer is accepted. The applicantinsurer shall deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest till date and costs as awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai within a period of four weeks from today, before the learned Commissioner. 3 In the meanwhile, there shall be adinterim stay to the execution and operation of the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that in the event, the applicantinsurer fails to deposit the aforesaid amount as directed above, the adinterim stay shall stand vacated automatically. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPELLANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole ....PETITIONER V/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Region Office-no.2 ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1142 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1141 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT None for the appellant VISHWAMBHAR MAHADEV PARKAR for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT J DATE : 27th March, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Respondent , stand over to 24/04/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPELLANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1142 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1141 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole ....PETITIONER V/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Region Office-no.2 ....RESPONDENT Adv. V. M. Parkar for Appellant. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT J DATE : 2nd May, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 09/05/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.685 OF 2006 Smt. Shubhangi wd/o. Ramkisan Cheulkar .. Appellant versus The Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay .. Respondent Mr.V.V. Mishra for appellant Mrs. Geeta Joglekar for respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :5th October, 2006. P.C:- ... Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by the City Civil Court dismissing the appellant's Notice of Motion No.4308 of 1999 for injunction against demolition of his unauthorised structure on the road. The respondent municipal corporation issued a notice on 17th February, 1997 to the appellant under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellant did not reply the said notice nor showed cause that the structure was authorised or was not constructed on the public street, but straightway filed suit bearing L.C. Suit No.5256 of 1999 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai for injunction. In the said Suit he took out a Notice of Motion No.4308 of 1999 for an injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing his stall. After carefuly considering the material adduced before it, the City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the stall was on the public road and not in the tenanted premises as alleged by the appellant. In view of this the trial court dismissed the Motion. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material which shows that the stall was constructed not on the public street but on private property and that he was tenant of anybody. In the circumstances the findings that the stall was on a public street, is a finding of fact which apparently is a proper finding. In view of this appellant is not entitled for any injunction. No error is found in the findings of the trial court. Appeal is dismissed summarily. ( D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.7624 of 2004 Shri Shankar Narsaiah Samala ..Petitioner vs. 1. Administrative Officer Municipal Education Board Bhiwandi, and ors. ..Respondents Shri M.S.Lagu for petitioner Shri R.M.Agrawal with Shri G.R.Agrawal for respondent no.1. Shri R.D.Rane, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ 23rd NOVEMBER, 2004 P.C. Heard Advocates. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Rane, Addl.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 fairly conceded that the impugned directions were issued without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is obvious that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears that respondent no.1 has suspended the payment of trained teacher to the petitioner solely on the basis of the directions given by the Deputy Director. At no stage the petitioner was heard by any of these authorities. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of recovery. We direct the Deputy Director to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions on merits are left open to the parties. Petition is disposed of.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1063 OF 2008 IN S.C.SUIT NO.313 OF 2008 ....................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda . of Coram, appearances, Court's . Orders or directions and . Registrar's Order Court's or Judge's Order ....................................................... Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.G.S.Godbole for Respondents. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. :- . Leave to the Appellant to make an application for removal of the debri alone before the Trial Court. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearances, Court's . orders or directions and . Registrar's orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Ms.J.V. Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J . DATED : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : Admit. 2.The impugned order does not warrant any interference. Prima-facie, it does appear that the Plaintiff had some right in the suit structure purchased from the predecessor-in-title of the Appellant. There is nothing at this stage which indicates that the agreement dated 10.10.1988 is of no effect. Added to this is the fact that the Appellant issued the bills in respect of the Plaintiff's structure after they acquired rights in respect of the suit property. 3.It further appears that the confusion regarding the identity of the structure and co-relation thereof with the municipal numbers is on account of certain construction activity/demolition which has taken place recently. Unless these aspects are considered at the final hearing of this Appeal from Order, it would not be correct to grant interlocutory order virtually allowing the Appeal at this stage. 4.In the circumstances, no interim orders staying the operation of the impugned order. The pendency of this Appeal from Order will not be a reason for the trial Court not to proceed with the trial.

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE DISTRICT : APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.Girish Godbole i/b.Mr.J.V.Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C : Order in terms of the consent terms/Minutes of the Order, tendered in Court and marked 'X' and 'X1' respectively. The consent terms have been signed by he parties and their Advocates. The compliance regarding registration shall be informed to the Court. ***

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.744 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. S. Dani for the Applicant. Ms. A. M. Bhambwani for the Respondent. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : JUNE 30, 2014 P.C.: Mentioned. Not on board. At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant the matter is taken on board for urgent orders. This Civil Revision Application is filed by the original Defendant Nos.1 and 7 challenging the judgment dated 28th March 2014 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai directing the Appellant to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit premises i.e. Room No.21/22 on the second floor of the building known as Chippi Chawl, sitaute at 3236, Bombay – 400 002 within three months from the date of order to the Plaintiff. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 original Plaintiff makes a statement that till next date, she will not execute the decree. Statement is accepted. Office is directed to place the matter on board on 30th July 2014. In the meantime, the Applicant is directed to serve the Respondent by way of private notice either by RPAD and/or by hand delivery and to file an affidavit of service to that effect on or before next date. JUDGE

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 744 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.S.Dani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr P.S.Dani, Advocate for the applicant. Ms.Asha M. Bhambwani, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 27/08/2014 PC: Not on Board. At the request of Ms. Bhambwani, taken up in the production board. Heard Mr. P.S.Dani, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Asha Bhambwani, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the parties state that by order dated 30.7.2014, statement made by learned counsel for respondent no.1-original plaintiff that till next date she will not execute the decree, was accepted and the application was ordered to be listed today for admission. However, the application is not listed for admission till today, ie 27.8.2014. She, therefore, mentions the matter for continuation of the ad-interim order. In view thereof, list the Application for admission on 15.10.2014. In the meantime, the ad-interim order granted on 30.7.2014, shall remain in force. (R.G.KETKAR,J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 23 JUNE 2015. P.C . :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary/ Daily Boards stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 13/07/2015 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 14/07/2015 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65 15/07/2015 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73 16/07/2015 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JULY 15, 2015 P. C. : On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary and Daily Boards stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Daily Board 03/08/15 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 04/08/15 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. 05/08/15 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46. 06/08/15 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.744 OF 2014 Himmatlal Chhogalal and Anr. ] … Applicants Versus Vijaysingh Gordhandas and Ors. ] … Respondents Mr. Suresh M. Jain for Applicants. Ms. Asha Bhambwani for Respondents. Mr. Himmatlal Chhogalal, Applicant No.1, present in person. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 P. C. : The learned Counsel for Applicants, on the basis of instructions from the Applicants, states that they desire to withdraw this Civil Revision Application. Accordingly, leave is granted to withdraw the Civil Revision Application and the same is disposed of as withdrawn. Mr. Himmatlal Chhogalal, Applicant No.1, present in person. Mr. Suresh M. Jain states that he will file Vakalatnama within a period of one week from today. The statement is accepted. (M. S. SONAK, J.) CERTIFICATE Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Order.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sangpal Gulabrao Jamnik ] Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Ms. Mayuri Hatle, for the Applicant. Smt.Rutuja Abmekar, APP for the State. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J DATE : 12th OCTOBER, 2022. P.C. 1] Since the offences invoke against the Applicant are under the provisions of POCSO Act, let the complainant be added as party-Respondent No.2. 2] After necessary amendment is being carried out, Issue notice to Respondent No.2 returnable on 29.11.2022. 3] Let the learned APP intimate the complainant through the Investigating Officer about her impleadment in the application and also apprise her of her right of being represented through counsel of her choice or through legal aid. [BHARATI DANGRE, J]

Order - Status 6: Urmila Ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2022.11.30 10:52:53 +0530 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2501 OF 2021 Mr. Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik ..Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms. Mayuri D. Hatl,e for applicant. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for respondent-State. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2022 P.C. : 1. The Learned APP submits that the complainant has been served and she wants to be represented through legal aid. Mr. Akshay Pai is requested to appear on behalf of the complainant and represent her. 2. List the matter on 06/12/2022. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 6th December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 16/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Ms. Mayuri D. Hatle for Applicant. Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP for State. Mr. Akshay Pai for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 16th December, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 20/12/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 20th December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 05/01/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2501 OF 2021 SAGAR @ SANGPAL GULABRAO JAMNIK ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS ------------ Ms. Mayuri D. Hatle for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Pai for respondent No.2. Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the State. ------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2023. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application. A request is made to expedite the trial as the applicant is in custody since 22/09/2020. The FIR is lodged on 28/07/2020. Considering that the applicant is in custody for more than 2 years and 3 months, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from today. In any case, considering that the applicant is incarcerated for this long a period, the trial Court is requested to record the evidence of the child within a period of one month from the date when this order is produced on record. 3. Liberty to apply for bail in case the trial does not substantially proceed during the period of six months from today. 4. Subject to what is observed hereinabove, the application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of. 5. I appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Pai, learned advocate, who was requested to appear on behalf of the victim. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik Versus...Applicant ...RespondentThe State Of Maharashtra...Respondent ____ None for the Applicant Ms. Anamika Mlahotra, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : $28^{text{th}}$ AUGUST 2023. P.C. : The letter dated 5 th July 2023 is received from District Judge-7 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, for extension of one year time for disposal of Special (POCSO) Case No. 506/2020. Considering the reasons mentioned in the letter, one year time is extended to dispose of Special (POCSO) Case No. 506/2020. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)