08.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought temporary bail for the purpose of attending marriage ceremony of his younger brother which is stated to be scheduled on 9th and 10th November, 2024.

2. Heard and considered.

3. The petitioner has been arrested in a case arising out of the Crime No. 15/2024 for the commission of offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act. As per case of the prosecution, commercial quantity of contraband drugs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 27.08.2024 when he along with co-accused was travelling in a bus. The investigation is stated to be still in progress.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against the judgment dated 24.05.2023 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No. 101/2021 titled Satish Kumar Jain vs. Jugal Kishore & Anr.

2. By impugned order, the learned ASJ dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 07.03.2020 and order on sentence dated 28.08.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 476576/2016 filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

2. The complaint was filed alleging that the petitioner and other co-accused persons, acting on behalf of the accused company namely M/s Fresco Foods Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement dated 12.03.2009 with the complainant whereby the respondent disbursed a sum of ₹1,60,00,000/- as a venture capital amount to the accused. This venture capital assistance was refundable upon the full repayment of the term loan. It is the case of the respondent that the accused undertook that in the event of the venture capital amount not being refunded on the same date as that of the repayment of the term loan from the bank, the same would attract interest at the same rate as that being charged by the bank for the term loan.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 assailing the judgement dated 10th September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the underlying writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 12165/2024 filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant also seeks quashing of the NEET Disability Certificate issued by respondent no.2 as well as the Medical Report of the AIIMS, New Delhi dated 6th September, 15:01:10 2024; and prays for declaring the appellant eligible to pursue medical courses and allowing him to take part in the ongoing counselling process. Alternatively, the appellant seeks re-evaluation and re-assessment of his suitability to pursue MBBS course notwithstanding the impugned Regulations. A challenge is also made to Footnote 3 to Appendix H-1 to the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME) Regulations, 2023 being ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with directions to the respondent no.1 to issue fresh Regulations/Guidelines in this respect.

CM(M) 84/2024

1. The Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, to challenge the Order dated 06.12.2023 of the learned Tribunal, dismissing the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟ hereinafter), of the M/s Shiv Probuild Pvt. Ltd./Registered Owner of the offending vehicle, to implead M/S. Kundu Nirman as a party.

2. The offending vehicle i.e. APOLLO make HIDROSTATIC PAVER FINISHER MODE of which the petitioner is the registered owner bearing No. 6H 3301/1200001, was handed over to the Respondent, M/s Kundu Nirman, pursuant to a Work Order dated 01.06.2022, on the specified terms and conditions. The Respondent being the contractor of Pubic Works Department („PWD‟ hereinafter), was carrying out the assigned work of strengthening and construction of the road, when the accident occurred involving this vehicle on 25.06.2022 at about 12:30 a.m., resulting in death of Mr. Rajesh. FIR No. 172/2022 under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟ hereinafter) read with Sections 3/181, 146/196, 39/192, 134/187, 66/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 („M.V. Act‟ hereinafter) was registered at Police Station, Roop Nagar, Delhi.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present CRL. MC. 4315/2023 filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar under Section 482 of CrPC, arises out of a complaint being CT No. 2592/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts, against his wife - Ms. Alka Singh and her family including her father- Mr. Viri Singh, her mother - Ms. Amar Kaur, her brother - Mr. Akhilesh Singh and her brother-in-law - Mr. Praveen Kumar.

1. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2024 ('impugned judgment') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi and order on sentence dated 08.05.2024 ('impugned order on sentence') in case arising out of FIR No. 302/2011 registered at Police Station Seema Puri for offences under Sections 302/308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. The appellants, by the impugned judgment, were convicted for the offences under Sections 323/304(II)/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code. A tabular statement of the conviction rendered and the sentence imposed by the learned ASJ on the appellants is reproduced below from the impugned judgment. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Simri PS case no. 79 of 2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354(D), 509, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story, as per the First Information Report, is that petitioner was teasing and stalking the informant for the last two years and when the informant protested, the petitioner threatened to make her photograph viral on the social media. On 17.04.2024, while the informant was going towards the house of her friend, petitioner and his friend followed her and made vulgar comments and upon protest, they assaulted her brutally. It has further been alleged that on 21.04.2024 in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70435 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 morning, the petitioner along with other accused persons armed with lathi, danda and sharp cutting weapon came at the door of the informant and assaulted her family members.

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No.153 of 2024, registered Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75612 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/324/325/307/435/379/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against fourteen named accused persons including the present petitioners with allegation that they have reached at the land of the informant and made the hut. Scuffling took place and the petitioners had attacked on the informant and others, due to which some persons were injured. Names were specifically mentioned in the FIR.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 341/ 323/ 307/ 385/ 504/ 506/34 of the IPC and added Section 302 of IPC.

3. Allegedly, all the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner entered the house of informant and started assaulting the informant and others with lathi, danda and iron rods due to which informant and others got injured and four months later, the informant died.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Dewaria P.S. Case no. 18 of 2024 registered under sections 376, 342, 323, 328 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information and Technology Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner who happens to be the husband of her cousin sister took her to a room in a hotel, made her to drink an intoxicated tea and on her falling unconscious established physical relations with her. It is further stated that he took objectionable photographs and threatened that he would make Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74140 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 the same viral. It is further stated that he also sent the photographs to some persons from his mobile phone, details of which has been mentioned in the F.I.R.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 323, 341, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the FIR, the allegation against the petitioners is that after receiving the consideration money of Rs. 17,90,000 from the informant they executed the sale deed in favour of other persons and did not return the aforesaid amount to the informant.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 37(C) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 and sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379, 448 and 504 of the IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioners are said to have entered into the house of the informant and indiscriminately assaulted the informant's side.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Appeal is admitted.

3. Call for the Trial Court Records of Registration No. 1621 of 2023 arising out of Samastipur Rail P.S. Case No. 57 of 2023 from the court of learned Special Judge (Excise)-2, Samastipur.

4. The present matter is taken on board for considering prayer of bail and suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.)/Section 430(1) of BNSS as raised through memo of appeal, itself as preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C./ Section 415 (2) of BNSS.

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 287 of 2013 in which order dated 01.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 278 of 2012 was challenged.

 2.      The parties were arrayed before different Foras as per following details :

Name of Party Before District Forum Before State Commission Before National Commission ( Original Memo of Parties) Before National Commission ( Amended memo of parties) Public College Samana Complainant Respondent No.1 Petitioner Petitioner State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall OP No.1 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.1 State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana OP No.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.2 Respondent no.1 State Bank of India, Head Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh OP No.3 Appellant Respondent no.1 Respondent no.1 Regional Provident Fund Commission OP No.4 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.3 Respondent no.2   For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.  Notice was issued to the Respondents on 25.01.2016. Both the Parties also filed Written Arguments/Synopsis  

1.     This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') challenges the order dated 16.02.2018 in complaint no. CC/26 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties no.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.50 lakh to the complainant as compensation for medical negligence for the death of his son with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint (23.04.2012) till the date of payment within 2 months of the order.

2.     I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29/02/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, ["learned CIT(A)"], for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

"1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the addition of Rs.54,64,000/- under sec.56(2)(b)(vii).

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering the bank statement of the appellant, Ledger copy confirmation of the Builder and letter of allotment issued to the appellant by the builder submitted while disputing the proposed addition during the assessment proceedings.

1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad ('State Commission') in FA No. 875/2014 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navsari, ('the District Forum') order dated 28.11.2013 wherein the District Forum had allowed the complaint by the Petitioner.

2.      As per report of the Registry there is a delay of 91 days in filing of the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application seeking Condonation of delay, the same is condoned.

3.       The Complainant approached the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the following prayers:

"a) To compensate  the complainant for the actual loss suffered (amounting to Rs.1,03,83,335/-) and release the remaining claim amount for the loss due to fire amounting to Rs.60 Lakhs (Approximately) along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 22.05.2017 till its actual payment to the complainant.

b) To compensate and make payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant by the misleading and negligent acts of respondent/Insurance Company and not paying the insurance claim at reinstatement value basis as specified in the insurance policy.

1.      The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the Order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh ("State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 83/2022, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is 31 days delay filing the Appeal. For reasons stated in IA/9118/2022, the delay is condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

4.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant's husband, Dilip Kumar Singh, obtained an insurance policy from OP insurance company on 28.06.2015. On 16.08.2015, while returning from Omkareshwar to Ujjain during Kavad Yatra, he met with an accident near Baigram on the Indore-Khandwa road and died. Following his death, the complainant submitted a claim to OP insurance company. However, the same was rejected on the ground that material facts about previous health conditions of the deceased were not disclosed in the proposal form. Hence, complainant filed C.C. No. 83/2022.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ITO, vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002.

PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Discoveri Media Group vs ITO, C/o-S.L.Poddar & Co., Ward-1(4), Gokul Apartment, E-3A, Kantichandra Gurugram. Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] ITO, Vs Discoveri Media Group, Gurgaon. 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122002. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Discoveri Media Group, vs ITO, 97B, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon-122002. Gurugram. PAN-AAIFD8766G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. Respondent by Shri B. K.Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2024 Page | 1

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA  

1.      This First Appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') challenges order dated 16.12.2020 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressals Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint No. 188 of 2020 holding that the appellants herein are not "consumers" under the purview of the Act and dismissing the complaint filed by them.

2.      The delay of 80 days in the filing of this complaint has been considered in the light of the fact that the impugned order was dated 16. 12.2020 and while the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of order, this period coincided with the COVID-19 Pandemic and in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 the period for limitation stood extended.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 None present on behalf of the petitioner. The present petition is filed in the Year 2021 qua the advertisement No.01/2018 dated 12.04.2018, with the prayers for allotment of home district as per the merit scored by the petitioner, however the same was not allotted and it is alleged that discrimination is caused qua the petitioner.

The matter is on board today after lapse of approximately four years and it appears that with efflux of time the lis in question does not survives.

[2024:RJ-JP:46386] (2 of 2) [CW-1283/2021] Accordingly, present petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 482 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.359/2024, registered at the Police Station Bassi Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 352 of BNS.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., it is revealed that no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused-petitioners and the accused-petitioners are both women. The alleged incident has taken place all of a sudden at an agricultural field.

5. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and [2024:RJ-JP:46170] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12586/2024] circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the accused-petitioners both are women and no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused-petitioners in the First Information Report, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd Shakir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.339/2024, registered at the Police Station Shahpura (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) & 305(a) of BNS.

2. The First Bail Application No.11258/2024 filed by the accused- petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.179/2024 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)

(a), 313, 317(5), 303(2) & 318(4) of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008.

2. The First Bail Application No.11314/2024 filed by the accused- petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the challan.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsels further submit that the Police after completion of investigation has [2024:RJ-JP:46166] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13786/2024] submitted charge-sheet in the matter. Counsels also submit that the petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

1. This third bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.197/2024 registered at Police Station Nagar, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(5), 303(2), 61(2)(a) & 313 of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008.

2. The First Bail Application No.11090/2024 filed by the accused- petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2024 and the Second Bail Application No.13130/2024 filed by the accused- petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated [2024:RJ-JP:46162] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13773/2024] 25.10.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 483 ds varxZr iqfyl Fkkuk Hkqlkoj] ftyk Hkjriqj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk izfrosnu la[;k& 236@2023 vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 143] 323] 341] 365 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa is"k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks >wBk lac) fd;k x;k gS vkSj rnqijkar Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 308 ds varxZr vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 308 ds varxZr izdj.k cuuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA fpfdRld dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vkgr dks dkfjr dksbZ Hkh pksV e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, laHkkfor ugha ikbZ xbZ gS vkSj u gh izk.k?kkrd ikbZ xbZ gS o vkgr dks dkfjr pksVsa fdlh ekfeZd Hkkx ij ugha gS] iSj ij dkfjr gSa] vf/kd ls vf/kd Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 325 ds varxZr vijk/k curk gS] tks fd vius vkiesa tekurh;

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/11/2024 The matter pertains to the Year 2021. From a perusal of the Court file it is noted that no sincere efforts are taken by the counsel representing the parties, to contest the instant matter.

Even today, when the matter was called, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.287/2024, registered at the Police Station Adarshnagar Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 140(2) & 142 of BNS.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 25.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 483 ds varxZr iqfyl Fkkuk [kksg] ftyk Mhx esa ntZ izFke lwpuk izfrosnu la[;k& 106@2024 vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 379] 419] 420] 468] 471] 120ch Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ,oa /kkjk 66Mh vkbZVh ,DV esa is"k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks >wBk lac) fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 27-07-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS vkSj izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr gks pqdk gSA izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa yack le; yxus dh laHkkouk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk,A fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tekur vkosnu dk fojks/k fd;k x;kA mudk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa 7 blh izdkj ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gks pqds gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,d vH;Lr vijk/kh gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks ;fn tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds iqu% vijk/k esa lac) gksus dh laHkkouk ls budkj ugha [2024:RJ-JP:46141] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11696/2024] fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k tk,A cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k vuU; :i ls eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gSA izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 27-07-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gSA rnqijkar iqfyl }kjk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ;|fi ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa Hkh vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gks pqds gSa] ijarq pw¡fd izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa yack le; yxus dh laHkkouk gS vkSj izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gS] eSa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr le>rk gw¡A izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkfjQ mQZ ccyw iq= vklw dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr bl ekeys esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks'kizn] muds U;k;ky; esa fu;r frfFk;ksa ij ,oa tc Hkh mls ryc fd;k tkos] mifLFkfr gsrq 50]000@& dk O;fDrxr ca/ki= o 25]000&25]000@& #i;s dh nks lqn`<+ ,oa fo"oluh; izfrHkwfr;ka izLrqr djs rFkk mldh fdlh vU; izdj.k esa vko";drk u gks rks vfoyEc fuEu "krZ ij tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tkosA "krZ%& izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr izR;sd ekg dh 25 rkjh[k dks lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh ds le{k viuh mifLFkfr ntZ djk, rFkk lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh vfHk;qDr dh mifLFkfr dks fu;ekuqlkj jftLVj esa ntZ djsxk o vfHk;qDr ds vuqifLFkr gksus ij lwpuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsxkA vfHk;qDr dh vuqifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr yksd vfHk;kstd vfHk;qDr dh tekur dks fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 439¼2½ lhvkjihlh ds varxZr l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr djus dks Lora= jgsxkA (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J MOHIT/Rameshwar/ 20 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk dh /kkjk 483 ds varxZr iqfyl Fkkuk tqjgjk] ftyk Mhx esa ntZ izFke lwpuk izfrosnu la[;k& 161@2024 vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 379] 419] 420] 468] 471] 120ch Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ,oa /kkjk 66Mh vkbZVh ,DV esa is"k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks >wBk lac) fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 26-07-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS vkSj izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr gks pqdk gSA izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa yack le; yxus dh laHkkouk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk,A fo}ku~ yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tekur vkosnu dk fojks/k fd;k x;kA mudk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa 7 blh izdkj ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gks pqds gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,d vH;Lr vijk/kh gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks ;fn tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds iqu% vijk/k esa lac) gksus dh laHkkouk ls budkj ugha [2024:RJ-JP:46143] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12284/2024] fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k tk,A cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k vuU; :i ls eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gSA izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 26-07-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gSA rnqijkar iqfyl }kjk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ;|fi ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa Hkh vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) gks pqds gSa] ijarq pw¡fd izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa yack le; yxus dh laHkkouk gS vkSj izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; gS] eSa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr le>rk gw¡A izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkfjQ mQZ ccyw iq= vklw dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr bl ekeys esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks'kizn] muds U;k;ky; esa fu;r frfFk;ksa ij ,oa tc Hkh mls ryc fd;k tkos] mifLFkfr gsrq 50]000@& dk O;fDrxr ca/ki= o 25]000&25]000@& #i;s dh nks lqn`<+ ,oa fo"oluh; izfrHkwfr;ka izLrqr djs rFkk mldh fdlh vU; izdj.k esa vko";drk u gks rks vfoyEc fuEu "krZ ij tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tkosA "krZ%& izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr izR;sd ekg dh 25 rkjh[k dks lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh ds le{k viuh mifLFkfr ntZ djk, rFkk lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh vfHk;qDr dh mifLFkfr dks fu;ekuqlkj jftLVj esa ntZ djsxk o vfHk;qDr ds vuqifLFkr gksus ij lwpuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsxkA vfHk;qDr dh vuqifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr yksd vfHk;kstd vfHk;qDr dh tekur dks fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 439¼2½ lhvkjihlh ds varxZr l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr djus dks Lora= jgsxkA (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J MOHIT/Rameshwar/ 29 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/2021

1. Rahul Choudhary Son Of Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ajeetpatti, Magorra, Mathura U.p.

2. Suresh Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Udal Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 90, Saroj Vihar, Balajipuram, Aurangabad, Mathura, U.P.

3. Deepak Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Resident Of Baroli Chauth, Bharatpur (Raj.)

4. Ankit Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaturvedi, Resident Of Nayabas, (Kyrakhera), Koyal, Raya, Mathura, U.P.

5. Anuj Kumar Son Of Shri Rohtash Singh, Resident Of House No. 8/62/3, New Kaushalpur, Agra, Dayalbag, U.P.

2. Sumit Bhardwaj Tehsildar (L.r), Laxmangarh, District Alwar

3. Shriram Meena S/o Deviram Meena, Principal Government Upper Primary School Kajota Laxmangarh

4. Mukesh Chand Meena, Lr Mauzpur

5. Sanjay Kumar Meena Patwari, Chimrawali Gaur

6. Imtiyaj Mohammed Patwari, Mauzpur A

7. Bhagat Singh Choudhari Patwari, Mauzpur B

----Accused/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/11/2024 Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, an appeal is provided under Section 14-A of the The Schedule Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989').

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.437/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46153] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13722/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.438/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46152] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13712/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.263/2024, registered at the Police Station Special Crime and Cyber Crime Police Station, Commissionerate Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 419, 120-B of IPC and 66 (C), 66 (D) of IT Act.

2. Heard.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashindra Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.179/2024, registered at the Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 382, 336, 379, 323 & 143 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused namely; Abhishek S/o Hira Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.71/2024, registered at the Police Station Clock Tower, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341 & 308 of IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.10.2024. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time. He is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenging the judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') and order on sentence dated 11.01.2024 (hereafter 'the impugned order on sentence'), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 103/2017 (Old SC No. 39/2017) arising out of FIR No.732/2016, registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh.

2. The learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'), Sections 354/354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Section 18 of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 511 of the IPC read with Section 376 of the IPC as well as Section 506 of the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeals No. 8 & 47 of 2024 Decided on 05.11.2024 ________________________________________________________________

1. Arbitration Appeal No.8 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar and Another ...Respondents

2. Arbitration Appeal No.47 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Maya Devi and others ...Respondents Coram:

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

1. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No. 2, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Lakhimpur, District Kheri, Uttar Pradesh i.e. the Respondent No.3, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to act upon the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 and impugned appellate order dated 30.07.2008 and create any hinderances in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question of the Petitioners.

1. The case has been heard through Video Conferencing from Allahabad.

2. Heard Sri Vaibhav Kalia (in bail no.1538/2023), Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava (in bail nos.11541/2022, 14110/2022, 14113/2022 & 14164/2022), Sri Manish Mani Sharma (in bail nos.1575/2023, 1640/2023, 1920/2023, 1998/2023, 2066/2023, 2090/2023 & 2316/2023), learned counsels for the applicants and Sri Ajai Kumar, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsels for the informant as well as Ms. Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

First Bail Applications Moved On Behalf Of The Applicants:-

3. Applicant- Nandan Singh Bisht went to jail on 19.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302, 120-B, 34, 427 IPC, Section 30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station- Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.