For State/respondent : Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.12.2012 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) & First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 01/2007, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 5000/- & R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively with further default stipulations.

Elon Musk says Tesla may leave its Palo Alto headquarters and Fremont, California factory. In a tweet Saturday morning, the chief executive continued his outrage against shelter-in-place orders that have forced most non-essential businesses to close. Last week, Musk likened the rules to fascism, and urged leaders to "give people their goddamn freedom back." Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.After a week of decrying coronavirus shelter-in-place orders that have left Tesla's main factory shuttered and unable to produce vehicles, Elon Musk says the company may move its factory out of the state."Tesla is filing a lawsuit against Alameda County immediately," the chief executive said on Twitter Saturday morning. "The unelected & ignorant 'Interim Health Officer' of Alameda is acting

1. "The attested copy of the very basis of the seniority list of 594 contractor's workers at BTPS as was published on notice board, the Appendix 'D' of Letter no. BT/DGM(Admn)/2/I-842 dt. 22-05-1998.

2. If there is no basis of preparing the aforesaid seniority list, then why the names of other persons were enlisted in the Appendix 'D' of the aforesaid letter."

2. The CPIO responded on 01-03-2018 & 16-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-03-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 19-04-2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which was decided by the FAA's order dated 30.11.2018, upholding the PIO's reply. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 98xxxxxx90 and submitted that he had sought the information even through the direct official channel. He claims that he had met the DG twice and had been assured by the DG that information regarding marks will be provided but later the respondent denied information without assigning any reason.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.05.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.06.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 89xxxxx145 and reiterated facts of his case. He has sought the information since he wants to join the service and wants to ensure whether the quota-wise benefit was granted. Decision:

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 09.05.2019, upholding the PIO's reply.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone number: 87xxxxxx25 and submitted that her husband passed away in 1997. Since her son was only few months old at the time of her husband's death, compassionate appointment was sought only when he attained 18 years. But respondent denied the benefit of compassionate appointment since the appellant had approached the respondent after a gap of 20 years. Since the appellant claims she is not in receipt of the proper pension amount and the benefit of compassionate appointment has also been denied by the respondent, the family is facing a financial crisis. Hence, she sought the aforementioned information by filing the instant case. Decision:

(1) Have MHA or DoP&T issued any order to revise Pay Scale of all eligible serving and Pensioners by lmplementing Hon'ble Delhi High Court Order on WP (C) 3549/2018 dated 1/5/19 CAPFs including BSF?

(2) ln this regard, has MHA given any decisions, or guidelines to BSF to Revise the Pay Scale of all eligible Personnel who completed 20 year of services by 2OL2 on the basis of above HC order? (3) Has BSF Challenged above HC Verdict before Hon'ble Supreme Court? lf so what consequence? (4) ls grant of MACP according to above Court Order only limit to Sunil Kumar Tyagi or similarly placed Personnel in BSF? What action is being taken by MHA in this regard?

PIO/DIG(Confd) vide reply dated 20.11.2019 denied disclosure of information citing the exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, whereby the respondent organization did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, unless the information pertained to allegations of Corruption and Human Rights Violations.

1. Category-wise cut-off marks of the result declared on 16.04.2019;

2. Marks obtained by the appellant in written examination and candidates with what score have been selected from Rajasthan OBC quota;

3. On what basis will be candidates selected from among the 447 candidates finalized for medical examination.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 12.06.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.07.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 06.09.2019, upholding the stance taken by the PIO and observing that the information could not be provided under the RTI Act since it did not fulfill the criteria of either human rights violation or of corruption as provided in the Section 24 of the RTI Act.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference. The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 99xxxxxx54 and reiterated the facts of his case and stated that he was working with CISF earlier and is currently with IB. Appellant stated during the course of hearing that he had posed similar queries before the MHA through a separate RTI application, which has been replied and he has received the requisite information. Having thus received the desired information, he does not wish to pursue the instant case.

PIO/BSF communicated rejection of the RTI application invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide online reply dated 17.12.2019. Meanwhile, the appellant had filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2019, which was not adjudicated.

Aggrieved by denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 96xxxxxx14 and reiterated the facts of the case stating that he is aggrieved on being denied any information about the marks obtained by him.

1. I want to know its next process & medical test date.

2. When will be its medical test

3. I am eagerly waiting its medial test dates many times I tried to know its previous recruitment centre but they have no information, about it please inform me medical test date He summarised his queries as:

(1) What is the reason of being so late in the process of recruitment. (2) I want to know the status of recruitment whether it will be completed or not.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of any information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 08.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 14.05.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of the documents of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) associated with the files related to the appointment of various Attorney Generals of India since 01.01.2010.

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.10.2018 stated that the Appeal had been examined and it was found that the CPIO on 11.09.2018 had sought certain clarifications from the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant was advised to clarify the same to the CPIO to enable him to provide the available information.

Page 1 of 5 RTI - 2 File No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2018/163414-BJ [ Date of RTI application 12.08.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 11.09.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 09.10.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.10.2018 FACTS:

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Case RTI PIO First First 2nd Nos. application replied on Appeal Appellate Appeal/complaint filed on filed on Order on received on 644389 11.05.2019 16.05.2019 23.05.2019 10.06.2019 01.07.2019 635814 21.09.2018 08.10.2018 15.10.2018 01.11.2018 21.11.2018 627430 08.07.2018 17.07.2018 28.05.2018 31.07.2018 01.08.2018 CIC/CISFO/A/2019/644389

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.05.2019 seeking information through five points pertaining to an incident that took place on 19.04.2014 at around 2330 hrs wherein a truck bearing registration no. WB37 8459 loaded with TMT iron rods was apprehended by the Local Police near CISF Unit NTPC Barh. Subsequently, an inquiry was ordered by the Central Vigilance Page 1 of 8 Commission vide its OM dated January 2015. Since the matter pertains to alleged corruption by CISF officers, the following information was sought:

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and,

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2007 to 2015.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 27.04.2020, provided requisite information to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of non-receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata seeking information on two points pertaining to his representation dated 31.05.2018, including,

a) Whether his aforesaid representation dated 31.05.2018 addressed to Sr. DOM/SDAH has been considered or disposed of, and

b) If disposed of, please serve a copy of the same at the earliest.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.07.2018. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that no information has been furnished by the respondent and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the CPIO and the FAA.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO, Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2006 to 2015.

2. The CPIO did not provide requisite information within stipulated period to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was also not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of non- receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information on seven points regarding reduction of pension of the Pensioner Shri Ganesh Chandra Mishra with PPO No. 02101265992 including,

a) Reason for 75% reduction of Pension,

b) Whether any inquiry was held against the Pensioner due to which pension was reduced,

c) Copy of Notice issued to the pensioner informing him that he is subject to an inquiry,

d) Receipt of confirmation showing Notice received by the Pensioner,

e) Transcript of the inquiry and report of inquiry, if any, held against the pensioner,

James Maddison put his untamed lockdown hairstyle on display as he thanked Leicester fans on Instagram after winning the ePremier League invitational on Saturday. 

The Premier League will consider relegating the bottom three clubs based on current league position if there is no resumption to the 2019/20 season.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE May 08, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:43:49 :::

The petitioner has already made representation against the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) to the Vice Chancellor, Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University, Gurugram. The worthy Vice Chancellor is directed to decide the representation within a period of two weeks from today, strictly as per the University Statues & Ordinance as well as on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:40:51 ::: CWP-7284-2020 -2- complainants.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:40:51 :::

----

Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma (Bhardwaj), Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Lalit Batra, J.(Oral) Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation dated 20.04.2020 (Annexure P-5) moved by petitioner is still pending before respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, District Bhiwani and the said authority may be asked to decide the said representation at the earliest.

Learned State counsel has given concurrence to the above said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has already made a representation vide Annexure P-3. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order and also by taking into consideration all the pleas raised in the writ petition.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:40:15 :::

The petitioner has already made a representation. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:42:29 :::

The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh within a period of one week from today. The General Manager shall decide the representation by passing a speaking/detailed order by referring to the terms and conditions incorporated in the tender document.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:39:14 :::

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.219 dated 05.10.2019 under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegation against the petitioner is that 605 grams Charas was recovered from him which he was allegedly carrying in a red colour bag. He submits that the alleged recovery is non-commercial. He further submits that he is in custody since 05.10.2019 and the trial is likely to take sometime to conclude.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:52:28 ::: CRM-M-52914 of 2019 {2}

It has been pointed out that allegations against the petitioner are to the effect that he had painted the vehicle and fictitious number plates. It has been arguedby learned counsel for the petitioner that co- accused namely Raja who was arrested from the spot has been granted regular bail and Ajay Kumar co-accused has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is over and he has been remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case is complete. The offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:20:13 ::: Challan has already been presented in the Court. Petitioner has been sought to be implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co- accused.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners. It has been further contended that an inquiry was conducted by the DSP (Major Crime) Moga (Annexure P2) subsequent to the registration of FIR which found the petitioners innocent as they were not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence which lends credence to the factum of petitioners having been falsely implicated in the instant case. It has been thus prayed that the petitioners be granted the concession of regular bail as they have been behind bars since 01.03.2020 coupled with the fact that the injury allegedly attributed to the petitioners was found to be blunt in nature.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the story put-forth in the FIR is a fabricated one and he has been falsely implicated in the FIR despite the fact that the electricity connection, which was found tampered was not even in his name, but in the name of one Rajesh. Hence, there was no evidence which could connect the petitioner with the alleged offence under Sections 135, 138 and 150 of the Electricity Act.

It has been further submitted that the petitioner has been behind the bars since 06th February, 2020. He has an ailing mother of 80 years of age and a minor child in his house and there is no body to look after his family in the prevailing conditions on account of the pandemic outbreak.

Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the allegations in the FIR, the co-accused of the petitioners namely Binder Singh has caused the injury on the head of the complainant and he already stands arrested, however, he has been granted the concession of the regular bail by the trial Court. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are attributed injuries on the non-vital part of the complainant and it will be a debatable issue to be decided during the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:56:16 ::: CRM-M No.12049 of 2020 (O&M) 2 course of trial, whether Sections 332 and 334 IPC are made out or not.

Disney keeps remaking its animated classics because they're a proven box-office success.Insider spoke with three former Disney animators who worked on "Beauty and the Beast," "Hercules," "The Lion King," and "Mulan" who shared their thoughts on the adaptations. They were surprised so many of the films they worked on are getting remade, especially the more recent ones from the '90s.None of them were fans of "The Lion King," criticizing the film's lack of emoting and how closely it adhered to the original."I think it's all about the money and growing the company and making the investors and stockholders happy," "Mulan" co-director Tony Bancroft told Insider. Insider also spoke with producers and VFX artists on "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" who pushed back on claims the remakes are simply cash-grabs.If

Disney's live-action "Mulan" is scheduled for release on July 24 after being delayed several months.Insider caught up with Tony Bancroft, codirector of 1998's animated "Mulan," at the film's world premiere at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, California in March.Bancroft told Insider he "enjoyed it far more" than he expected and praised director Niki Caro on a job well done."This, to me, is what all these Disney remakes should be," said Bancroft of the film being reminiscent of the original, but being original enough to stand on its own.Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.Early social reactions for Disney's upcoming live-action "Mulan" have been extremely positive. The new film also has the backing of one of the codirectors of the original 1998 animated movie."I really enjoyed it far

1 Learned A.P.P, on instructions, states that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded on 6 th May 2020 and that the police intend to register a C.R pursuant to the said statement. Statement accepted. 2 Stand over to 12th June 2020.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

SQ Pathan 1/1

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:45 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:53:02 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:40 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:51 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

2. The present respondents have filed First Appeal No.1909 of 2019 challenging the Judgment and award in land acquisition proceedings i.e. Land Acquisition Reference No.122 of 2011, decided by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga on 02-08- 2014. The appeal is admitted and it is pending before this Court for its turn for final hearing. They have also filed an application for stay ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:30 ::: 3 CriApln 90-2020 to the execution of the award and a conditional order was passed by this Court. The appellant therein were directed to deposit the entire decreetal amount awarded by the Reference Court along with interest accrued within six weeks from the date of the order i.e. 22- 06-2018. After the amount was deposited by the appellants therein, the present applicants had filed Application No.7291 of 2019 for withdrawal of the amount. After hearing the parties, this Court passed following order : -

(ii) The applicants to deposit the fine amount in the trial Court within eight weeks from today;

SQ Pathan 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 06:03:59 ::: LD.VC.OCR.25.20.doc (iii) The applicants shall report to the trial Court once in six

months, till the aforesaid appeal is finally heard and decided. 6 The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed by the Senior Private Secretary.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called;

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

SQ Pathan 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 06:03:51 ::: Apeal.196.20.doc 8 Stand over to 3rd July 2020. 9 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed

1 By the aforesaid interim application and criminal application, the applicant/petitioner, who appears in-person has made several grievances as against the Investigating officer-ACP Ms. Asmita Bhosale, amongst other grievances. In an earlier petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 1135/2019, this Court having considered the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the petitioner therein i.e. Sheetal Shah, was of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 1135/2019 is treated as representation to the Commissioner of Police and as such directed the Commissioner of Police to take cognizance of the said writ petition within four weeks from the date SQ Pathan 1/3 wp.3402.19.doc of the order. Since multiple reliefs are sought in the petition, in particular, transfer of investigation of all five FIRs registered with different police stations, this Court directed that the investigation of all the five FIRs be assigned to a responsible high ranking officer, not below the rank of A.C.P and on such officer being designated to investigate, the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the said investigation. The said order was passed on 4th June 2019 and was disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 2 The grievance of the applicant/petitioner in both the aforesaid applications is that there is a threat to her life and to her children and that the Investigating Officer Ms. Asmita Bhosale and other Officers are not investigating the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner has made several allegations of corruption as against some of the officers. According to her, the said investigation in the five FIRs is not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

2. The appellant is apprehending the arrest in Crime No.282 of 2019 registered with Ghargaon Police Station, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. The first information report has been lodged by present respondent No.2.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. L. S. Mahajan for appellant, learned APP Mr. P. K. Lakhotia for respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil for respondent No.2. Perused the affidavit-in-reply along with documents.

4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Special Judge failed to consider the enmity between the applicant and the informant. A complaint application has been filed by the present appellant in respect of the property dispute. It was contended that there is a Big house (Wada) of the forefathers of the appellant. It is now in dilapidated condition. There was certain space behind the said Wada. When the family -2- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:55 ::: 2-Apeal-6-2020.odt of respondent No.2 started levelling the land behind the Wada, it was objected by the appellant so also a written complaint was filed on 08-09- 2015 to the Grampanchayat. However, the Grampanchayat with some political motive had made entries in the name of the family of respondent No.2. Therefore, a complaint application was then made by him to the Collector. The informant got annoyed with the same and, in fact, application under Section 14-G of the Maharashtra Grampanchayat Act was filed by the appellant against the Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and the Gram Sewak of the Grampanchayat. It was stated that all of them together had shown the open space belonging to the appellant in the name of one Maruti Karbhari Mundhe, Suresh Karbhari Mundhe and Pramod Rambhau Mundhe. It is further stated that present respondent No.2 is the near friend of said Mundhe family and by taking advantage of the caste of the informant false complaint has been lodged and those two persons from Mundhe family whose name has been taken in the application before Collector by the appellant are shown to be the eye witnesses to the incident. In fact, these two witnesses by name Mundhe were not even present when the incident had taken place. Therefore, when the FIR is filed with mala fide intention, the learned Special Judge ought not to have considered that there is bar for entertaining pre- arrest bail applications in view of Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act. -3- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:55 :::

2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. -1- ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:45 :::

2(i)-appln-3675-19.odt

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. C. Bora holding for learned Advocate Mr. M. L. Wankhade for applicant and learned APP Mr. P. G. Borade for respondent-State.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:34:03 ::: (2) Cr.WP 1611/2016 both the parties and matter is taken for fnal hearing at the stage of admission itself.

3. Present petition has been fled by the original accused, invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 2015 dt. 21-09-2016 by learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon and also to challenge the order passed below Ex.1 in Regular Criminal Case No. 573 of 2006 dt. 26-11-2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.

2. Present appeal has been filed by original accused under Section 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the Atrocities Act) with Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in order to challenge the order of rejection of their bail petition No.78/2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad (Special Court) on 17.1.2020.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that they are apprehending arrest at the hands of M.I.D.C., Waluj Police Station in respect of Crime No.12/2020 dated 07.01.2020, on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Section 294, 452, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(w)(i)

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. I. Pathan for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Y. K. Delmade for respondent No.1.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:39 ::: 3 WP 1700-2019 husband that, the learned trial Judge failed to consider that, there was nothing on record which would positively show that the wife has been subjected to domestic violence. A cryptic order has been passed only on the basis of contents of the application and by ignoring the say filed by the respondent. There was nothing to show that, the husband had deserted the wife. Further the husband had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court at Nanded vide Petition No. A 91 of 2016, it has been decided on 02-02-2018, thereby decreeing the petition and directing the wife to resume cohabitation. Under such circumstance, the wife is not entitled to get maintenance much less interim maintenance. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.