BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 11/11/2024 Heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (New Section 483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jashim Uddin Laskar, son of Late Jalal Uddin Laskar, resident of Village- Barnagad, P.O. Kalibaribazar, P.S. Algapur, District-Hailakandi, seeking bail in Silchar P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 1935/2023 registered under Sections 379 IPC (Section New 303 BNS) corresponding to G.R. No. 3650/2023, wherein he was arrested on 11.09.2024 and is in custody since then.

11.11.2024 Heard Shri A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant, namely, Jiarul Haque, who has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) praying for granting pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhuragaon PS Case No.78/2024, under Sections 447/376/503/34 of IPC.

Also heard Shri K. K. Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

Page No.# 2/2 Call for the Case Diary, fixing 29.11.2024.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the offences involved are serious in nature a bare reading of the allegations which has been registered in the form of a complaint would show that the same are concocted. He has highlighted the aspect that though the alleged incident is on 04.06.2024, the complaint has been lodged on 27.08.2024.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. R. N. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, for the respondent No.2.

2. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner, namely, Shri Abir Dutta, son of Late Jagat Chandra Dutta, resident of Village/Town- Ward No.7, South Amolapatty, Mohanghat, Near Borah Hyundai, District- Dibrugarh has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in C.I.D. P.S. Case No.11/2024 (C.R. Case No. 4427/204) registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC.

3. The matter relates to alleged illegal claim of land acquisition compensation of land relating to Dag Nos. 8 and 9 under Jhapora Gaon of Dibrugarh Town Protection (DTP) Dyke/Mathauri that was constructed in the year 1954-56, which is Government land and allegedly purchased by father of the petitioner late Jagat Chandra Dutta during his lifetime in the year 1971.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 6; Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI/NHIDCL for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5.

In view of the Judgment of the three-Judges Bench decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and others, reported in [2018] 15 SCC 356, and the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 558/2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would complete his instructions on the issue of the maintainability of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the Judgment and Order under challenge is passed by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a reference under Section 3H[4] of the National Highways Act, 1956.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. T. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved with the order dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at Calcutta, West Bengal in Case No.CS59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC directing the petitioner for his appearance on 11.07.2024 and the order dated 11.07.2024 of the said Court by which it issued Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner for his appearance in said Case No.CS/59941/24.

3. Petitioner has filed this application under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India stating that as per the Business Loan Agreement dated 25.11.2023, with Loan Application ID No. 107024 the agreement was executed at Chennai with the respondent No.1, whereas, the borrower i.e., the petitioner/lonee is from the District of Karimganj, Assam, therefore, the Court at West Bengal does not have any jurisdiction to initiate any such proceeding on the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, Mintifi Finserve Private Limited under Section 200 CrPC with charge under Sections 406/420 IPC against the petitioner before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th at Calcutta being registered as Case No.CS/59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC. According to the petitioner, taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner by the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 15 th at Calcutta, West Bengal on the basis of the complaint of the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and bad in law.

11.11.2024 Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the Page No.# 3/3 judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on bail during trial and appeal as such the petitioner may be allowed to remain on previous bail or to go on bail.

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-2 (FTC), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 52(T)/18 convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo with Life Imprisonment u/s 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default the accused shall have to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an FIR on 18.02.2018 by one Ashok Chik (PW2), who is the brother of the deceased Sankar Chik. In the said FIR, the informant did not name anybody as accused and the allegation was that some unknown miscreant had left his younger brother near the Kali Mandir after killing him. On the basis of the FIR, the investigation was done whereafter the charge sheet was submitted. On framing of the charges and denial thereof, the formal trial had begun in which 15 numbers of prosecution witnesses were examined and certain documents were also exhibited including the sketch map. Apart from the statements made before the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the statements of 3 nos. of witnesses were also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the evidence, the appellant - accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he had denied the evidence against him.

Date : 11.11. 2024 Heard Mr. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

It is submitted by Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that charge sheet vide C.S. No. 11/24, dated 31.03.2024 has already been submitted Page No.# 2/2 in connection with Kazigaon P.S. Case No. 87/2023 under Sections 120B/ 273/ 379/ 418/ 420/411 IPC read with Section 59(II) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach before the trial court with an appropriate application seeking zimma of 125 bags of local areca nuts.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Sheikh Faruque Al Bash has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

Case diary is received.

The allegation in the FIR reveals that the daughter of the informant was dragged by the petitioner to an unknown place on his bike and sexually assaulted her.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, 1. Sheikh Abdur Rezzaque Ahmed,

2. Rukia Khatun and 3. Sheikh Junayed Ahmed have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that by order, dated 28.06.2024, this Court granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners and they have appeared before the I.O. and gave their statements.

Date : 11.11.2024

1. Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent.

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamir Uddin, who has been detained behind the bars since Page No.# 2/8 19.12.2022 (for more than 1 year 10 months) in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 170/2022, which is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.12.2022 about 739 grams of heroin was seized from the possession of 4 (four) accused persons including the present petitioner and on 19.12.2022, one Nilov Jyoti Nath, S.I. of Police had lodged an FIR to that affect before the Officer-In-Charge of Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station. On receipt of the said FIR, Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 165/2022 was registered under Section 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against four numbers of accused persons, including the present petitioner on 30.04.2023 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. A. I. Uddin, Advocate For the respondents :

Dates of hearing : 08.11.2024 Date of Judgment : 12.11.2024 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner submitted his bid in respect of the E-Tender Notice No.06/2023- 2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pune, Government of Maharashtra, for supply of minimum 4 months old bamboo seedlings from certified seed source in around 4"x5" size polybags.

...

19. It is clear from the above narrative that none of the documents Page No.# 10/14 produced during the trial answered the description of "the date of birth certificate from the school" or "the matriculation or equivalent certificate"

from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that the victim's age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General Hospital at Vellore, produced the X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a certificate was issued stating "that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years". In the cross-examination, she admitted that M's age could be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that "when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor". This finding is, in this court's considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94 (2)(ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim's bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 18-20 years; in cross-examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-

3. The background facts leading to filing of present appeal are adumbrated herein below:-

The respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a Title Suit being T.S. No.619/2023, before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arraigning the present appellants as defendants and also one Sarojini Das, mother of respondent No.2. as respondent No.3, though she had already died before institution of the Title Suit, on 6.7.2023, and also arraigning Amulya Das, son of Late Lalit Chandra Das, Sri Bhaskar Bhusan Das, son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Bijoy Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Kishore Das, son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Jamini Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Pranab Das, son of Late Narayan Das, Sri Rudreswar Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Bankim Chandra Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, all are resident of Pandu, Sadilapur, P.S. Jalukbari, Guwahati-12, as pro- forma defendant Nos.5 to 13 in the said suit.

11.11.2024 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. P. Page No.# 2/6 Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this application u/s 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 25/07/2023 vide Mankachar PS case No. 308/2023 u/s 376 AB/511 IPC read with Section 8/10 of POCSO Act and section 67 of IT Act.

3. The allegation as per FIR is that on the date of incident when the minor daughter of the informant while visited the house of her father-in-law, the present petitioner along with other co-accused No. 3 and 4 handed over the victim to accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 had kissed the victim girl on her face and different parts of her body and tried to commit rape on her. They also took the photographs of the said incident and made them viral through mobiles.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. By filing this petition u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, Sunu Ali @ Md.

Page No.# 2/8 Nur Hussain has prayed for granting regular bail in connection with NDPS case No. 187/2024 u/s 21©/29 of NDPS Act (arising out of STF PS case no. 20/23) pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The instant case relates to recovery of commercial quantity of heroine from the hidden chamber of Tata Yodha vehicle bearing no. AS-25EC-4464 and the present petitioner was found inside the vehicle along with the alleged contraband. Accordingly, the recovered items were seized and the present accused/ petitioner was arrested.

by Mr. A. Chandran, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.

: Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. M. Phukan, Public Prosecutor, Assam and Ms. P. Barua, Advocate. : Ms. M. Kechii, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland. : Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, Additional Advocate General, Mizoram.

Page No.# 2/16 Date of Hearing : 04.11.2024 Date of judgment : 11.11.2024 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

This first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest relating to FIR/Crime No.258/2024 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Navegaon (gramin), District Balaghat for the offence under Sections 126, 132, 121 (1), 296, 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as B.N.S.S.).

2. Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants have been falsely implicated by the prosecution while alleging inter alia that the complainant who is Patwari, along with one of his associate came to collect the land revenue to the shop of the present applicants, however, instead of paying the land revenue, the present applicants abused and assaulted the complainant, as a result of which, the offences have been NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55199 2 MCRC-45295-2024 registered against them. It is contended by the senior counsel that the complainant who is working as Patwari was blackmailing the present applicants and in that regard, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat on 04.10.2024 which has been brought on record as Annexure A/2. It is further contended by the senior counsel that the present applicants have not committed any offence and the complainant has not sustained any kind of injury, therefore, the said allegations are false and baseless. Thus, counsel submits that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are aged about 59 years and the applicant No.3 is son of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 aged about 30 years having no criminal record, deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

This is first application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. (S.439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 652 of 2024 registered at Police Station - Kotwali Datia, District Datia (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 331(5) and 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in custody since 25/9/2024. It is further argued that present FIR is counterblast of FIR lodged against injured Navalpal by applicant Vishal Pal bearing Crime No. 650/2024. Further submission is that as per allegations applicant/accused along with co-accused Rahul threw Naval Pal on ground and assaulted him with Danda. It is further argued that co-accused person namely Rahul has NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19406 2 MCRC-45528-2024 already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.43343/2024 and case of the present applicant is at parity with him, hence, he seeks parity and prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

This is repeat (third) application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.407/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 328, 109 of the IPC and Sections 18(c), 27 (b)(i) of the Aushadhi Aur Prasadhan Samagri Adhiniyam, Section 8, 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and also under Sections 5/13 of the M.P. Drug Control Act, 1949.

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, 1973 (Section 482 of BNSS, 2023) for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.401/2024, dated 07.09.2024, registered at Police Station Ashoka Garden, District Bhopal (M.P.) for commission of offence under Sections 296, 115, 118(1), 110, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Applicant apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid offence has knocked at the portal of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 06.09.2024, applicant/accused caused injury to Anuj by means of some blunt and hard object while her son Abhishek caused injury by means of knife to the complainant party. FIR was registered.

1. Heard on I.A.No.20559/2024, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the Public Prosecutor.

2. On due consideration and the reasons contained in the application, the same is allowed. Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor at the time of hearing of this case.

3. The applicant has filed this second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 01.03.2024 by Police Station Morar, District Gwalior, M.P. relating to Crime No.66/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.27396/2024.

This is first application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. (S.439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail to the applicants in connection with Crime No. 190 of 2024 registered at Police Station - Sirol, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 54 and 3(5) of the BNS and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. There is no evidence on record to connect them with the crime. Further submission is that the FIR does not indicate that the applicants were present in the Car. Applicants were arraigned in this case only on account of statement of memorandum. Further submission is that order-sheet of learned trial Court dated 13/9/2024 (Annexure A/2) indicates that until 13/9/2024 no allegations were made against the applicants/accused persons. Even Creta Car does not belong to NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19418 2 MCRC-45016-2024 the applicants. They are under custody since 21/9/2024. Their custodial interrogation is not required anymore as material investigation has already been concluded. Applicant Aakash is permanent resident of Village Girgaon, Maharajpura, Gwalior, while applicant Rahul is permanent resident of Noorabad, District Morena and there is no likelihood of their absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evdience. They shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Hence, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicants

1. This criminal appeal (first) under Section 14-(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior, in Bail Application No.2473/2024 whereby the application moved by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.81/2023 registered at Police Station Gwalior District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 346, 363, 506, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail relating to Crime No. 71 of 2022 registered at Police Station - Tyonda, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence under Section 366, 376 (2)(N), 342, 323, 34 of IPC and section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that applicant is in custody since 13.09.2024. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, further custodial interrogation is no more required. It is further argued that entire prosecution story in respect to the present applicant is highly suspicious in the light of the fact that allegedly the incident occurred on 05/04/2022 and the prosecutrix was recovered on 16/04/2022. Thereafter, her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, she mentioned her age as 20 years. She has also stated that she left NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19386 2 MCRC-44213-2024 her house on her own volition because she wanted to marry with the present applicant. Her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. further indicates that she visited various places along with the applicant, however, she did not raise any alarm or tried to escape from the custody of the applicant. It is further submitted that allegation of human trafficking is not against the present applicant. It is further argued that co-accused Abid has already been acquitted in this case bearing S.T. No. 32/2023 vide judgment dated 10/06/2024. In that case, learned trial court has given specific opinion that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. Thus, at the most, this is a case of consensual sexual relationship between two adult persons. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is permanent resident of District Raisen (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

This is second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 04 of 2024 registered at Police Station - Nateran, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 326, 325, 307, 506 of IPC. First application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.04.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16327/2024.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that the after withdrawal first bail application, case was listed on many occasion for recording of evidence of injured witnesses. Summons and bailable warrants were issued for appearance of the injured witnesses. However, except 22.08.2024, they failed to appear before the trial Court for recording of evidence, despite they were bound over for next date of hearing. Further submission is that there is delay in trial and lastly on 07.11.2024 two injured witnesses have been examined and remaining 30 enlisted NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19414 2 MCRC-27381-2024 witnesses are yet to be examined. Applicant has already suffered incarceration more than eight months since 09.02.2024. Allegedly, he inflicted injuries to Arvind by means of pharsa, but no grievous injury is found on his body. As per MLC, the injury are caused by hard and blunt object which belied the version of prosecution about causing injury by sharp cutting object pharsa. The applicant is in custody since 09.02.2024. Since investigation has already been completed, therefore, further custodial interrogation is no more required. The applicant he is permanent resident of District Vidisha (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconding or tempering with prosecution case. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that bail application is filed in name of Shilpa Pathak. He has filed an application (I.A.No.29004/2024) for amendment in record. It is submitted that after marriage name of applicant has been changed to Shilpa Dubey, therefore, he wants to correct the cause title.

2. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, application is allowed.

3. Name of applicant is to be treated as Shilpa Pathak @ Shilpa Dubey.

4. This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.523/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 294, 506, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case diary is available.

2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.61/2024 registered at Police Station Dharkundi,, District Satna for offence under Sections 406, 06, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018.

4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that applicant has filed a Writ Petition No.23452/2024 for transfer of investigation to another Investigating Agency and in that case by order dated 22.08.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant.

Case diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 483 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023 (439 of Cr.P.C.). for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 140/2020 registered at Police Station S.T.F, District Bhopal for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The applicant is in custody since 25/07/2024 Prosecution story, in short, is that complaint was lodged by one Bharat Singh, who is the President of Dilip Buildcon Limited stating that cheque bearing No. 235994 amounting to Rs.4,200/- has been made and amount of Rs.8,84,62,302/- has been cloned on the aforesaid cheque. The said cheque was submitted for clearance on 02/03/2020 before Punjab National Bank Branch Bandra Mumbai (Maharashtra), where the aforesaid cheque has already been cleared on 20/08/2020 for the said amount of Rs.4,200/-issued in the name of NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55317 2 MCRC-46936-2024 Subbavarapu Satyanarayan. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, case has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.

IA No. 23672 of 2024, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC moved on behalf of complainant seeking permission of this Court to assist the prosecution in the matter is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Shri Aditya Ghuraiya, learned counsel appearing for complainant along with his associates is permitted to assist the prosecution in the matter.

This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.146 of 2024 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC.

The appeal was heard on admission and reserved on 25/09/2024.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28/10/2021 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Mandla in Civil Appeal No.43/2016 [Bisan Lal Vs. Rajau and another] arising out of judgment and decree dated 29/06/2016 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Nainpur in Civil Suit No.24-A/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments on admission it was argued that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that Tahsildar Nainpur under the provision of Section 89 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has passed the order in favour of the appellant. In First Appeal, certain documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were produced but they were not taken on record. One registered sale deed was also produced.

This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.458/2023 registered at Police Station- Kampoo, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2 . Allegation against the petitioners is that on account of old enmity, they came together and petitioner Daulat fired a gunshot with pistol on the complainant while he was drinking beer in his car but the bullet hit the back gate of the car.

This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.416/2011 registered at Police Station- Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2 . Allegation against the petitioner is that he along-with other co- accused on the basis of forged power of attorney sold the plot to the complainant.

3. I.A.No.21627/2024 and I.A. No.21628/2024, applications for compromise have been filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 duly supported by their affidavits.

With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

The applicant has filed the present M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of F.I.R. No.55/2020 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj, District - Indore for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and final report dated 21.04.2020 and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024}

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24-

03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

Looking to the issue involved in the case that the petitioner was dismissed from service by way of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry but that has been questioned by the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and as such, an order has been passed by this Court on 21.05.2024 directing the respondents to file an affidavit/counter to the petition. Reply has been submitted. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.

2 W.P. No.10021-2024

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-

aside the impugned order dated 18-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Narmadapuram, in Case No. 132/Appeal/2024-2025.

7.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to get mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of registered will dated 02-05-2011. 7.3. Any other writ/direction deem fit and proper and fact and circumstance of the case.

The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg

The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024.

The time mentioned is peremptory.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months, to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

The Court: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 25th April, 2023, the appeal was admitted and all further proceedings in the suit including the hearing of the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending before the learned Trial Court was initially stayed for eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order was extended from time to time.

2

We feel that the appeal is required to be heard and we do not find any reason to vacate the interim order at this stage.

The interim order passed on 25th April, 2023 is confirmed. The applications stand disposed of.

The appeal shall be listed on 25th November, 2024.

The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in WPO/1664/2023 challenging the interim order dated 14.12.2023.

By the said interim order the positive direction has been issued to the appellant to disburse the dues to the writ petitioner in terms of the bills for the period other than pertaining to the financial year 2018-19 and also the appellant has been restrained till the disposal of the writ petition from refusing to accept the bills which has been filed by the writ petitioner for the subsequent period including the current years.

We find that relief granted to the writ petitioner is in fact the relief which has been prayed for by the writ petitioner in prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. The learned Single Bench was also conscious of the fact that to decide the matter finally affidavits have to be called for and, accordingly, issued appropriate direction.

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

The Court:- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated November 08, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.666/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error by not considering the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital / share premium of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, without considering the fact that there is accommodation entry in the instant case?

learned advocate on record of the appellant is directed to serve notice of appeal on the respondent in the meantime.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar

The Court : This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging an order dated January 11, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.763/Kol/2022, for the assessment order 2013-14.

We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

The appeal was filed beyond time and an application for condonation of delay was filed which was heard and the delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the assessee has been advised to avail the provisions of the direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (VSVS) dated 15 th October, 2023. However, one issue may crop up if the assessee files an application under VSVS by citing that the duty fixed for eligible cases as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(Sl.1)(ii). Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Asish Kumar Ghosh, WPA 18282 of 2021 and by judgment dated 1st April, 2022 this Court had considered the very same issue and found that the assessee would be eligible to file a declaration under the provisions of the VSVS and a direction was also issued to process such application. The judgment rendered in Asish Kumar Ghosh will fully support the case of the assessee and therefore the assessee is entitled to file an application under the VSVS. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an application and the department shall process the application in accordance with law.

Date: November 8, 2024.

Appearance :

Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv.

Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv.

... for the plaintiff Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv.

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges.