08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Mahakalpara P.S. Case No.218 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2351 of 2022, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 307, 506, 325, 34 of I.P.C.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Aska P.S. Case No.111 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.237 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Aska for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/149 / 307/323/324/458 of the I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.2898 of 2022 vide order dated 26.04.2022.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 48 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Konark P.S. Case No.118 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.506 of 2021, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Konark, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 325, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Byree P.S. Case No.95 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.946 of 2023, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 307, 507, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.35 of 2018 arising out of Berhampur Badabazar P.S. Case No.93 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur for offences punishable under sections 147/148/302/120-B/307/326/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Paikmal P.S. Case No.194 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.47 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court, under POCSO Act, Bargarh for offences punishable under sections 366-A/370/370-A/ 372/376(2)(n)/109/34 of the I.P.C., section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 3/4/5/6 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with Marine P.S. Case No.13 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.245 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Chhatrapur for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/ 353/341/323/324/291/336/307/427/506/ 149 of the I.P.C. and section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.11824 of 2020 as per order dated 05.11.2020 and at that time, the investigation was under progress but in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted and in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal -Vrs.- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 831, the petitioners may be permitted to surrender in the Court below and move an application for bail and provisions laid down therein may be considered by the learned Court below while adjudicating the bail application.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Puruna Bazar P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.765 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (Cog.-I), Bhadrak for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/294/454/427/395/436/153-A/506/ 149 of the I.P.C.

Perused the F.I.R.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that first information report was not lodged against the petitioner but subsequently, he has been entangled in this case and similarly situated co-accused, namely, Sk. Bhalu has been directed to be released on anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.8038 of 2017 vide order dated 12.07.2017 and on hearing learned counsel for the State, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail and accordingly, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with further conditions that he shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Courts or to the Investigating Officer.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.103 of 2017 arising out of S.T.F. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.3 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 16/17/18/18(B)/20/21/28/40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and section 124(A) of the I.P.C.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide order dated 03.01.2024.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the petitioner No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2017 came to be registered against the petitioner No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/323/325/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

Page 1 of 4

3. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the petitioner No.2. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2016. Few days after their marriage, dissention arose in their family for which the petitioner No.2 lodged the F.I.R. being Bari Ramachandrapur P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 for the above alleged offences.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Ranpur P.S. Case No.10 of 2015 corresponding to S.T. Case No.22 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341/ 323/ 294/ 354/ 307/ 506/324/452/427/34 of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Nayagarh.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 10.01.2015, the complainant reported at the P.S. that, on the same day, when he was working with labourers, the petitioner Nos.1, 3 & 4 removed his stumps and destroyed. When the labourers opposed the same, they left the place. Then in the same evening, while the complainant was coming from his house to pay his labourers, the above accused persons being armed with lathi, katari etc. entered into his house and abused him in obscene languages. The petitioner No.2 attacked him by means of katari to kill him. At that time, one Sunil Samantaray of his village obstructed the same and he sustained bleeding injury on his left hand. Thereafter, his sister-in-law, father and mother also tried to rescue him, but the accused persons pushed them and dragged the saree of his sister- in-law and kicked her. At that time, his brother Harmohan Nayak, Prafulla Nayak, Gagan Nayak, Sanjay Nayak and others reached at the spot and rescued them. All the accused persons threatened to kill them. Hence, the F.I.R.

Date of Hearing :08.11.2024 :: Date of Order :11.11.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 in connection with Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack is taken up into consideration.

{{ 2 }}

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack in Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 remaining in the jail custody since 29.01.2024 as an under trial prisoner having been charged under Section 292-A, 212, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 66-E, 67-A & 67-B of the I.T. Act, 2000 along with his other co-accused persons on the allegations alleged against him that, due to the frequent talking between the petitioner and the victim since the month of May, 2022, they loved each other and the petitioner proposed the victim for marriage. Thereafter, in the months of August and November, 2023, the petitioner took the victim by his motorcycle to the OYO Hotel on three different dates and made sexual intercourse with her in a room of that hotel in each occasion and took the naked/nude photographs of the victim inside the room of that hotel through his mobile phone and sent the said nude/naked photographs to the mobile phone of the victim through whatsapp and the said nude photographs of the victim were in her mobile phone, to which, she (victim) had not disclosed before {{ 3 }} any of her family members including her parents. Thereafter, there was disturbance between the victim and the petitioner, for which, the victim stopped her talking with the petitioner. So, the petitioner made the nude photographs of the victim viral. Thereafter, on dated 07.01.2024, she (victim) lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner at Sadar police station, Cuttack, alleging the aforesaid allegations.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

-

1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.39/2018 (State Vs. Kamlesh Dube and Others) thereby questioning the legality of judgment and order of convicting both the appellants under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 2 cr.appeal.128.2022-JF.odt read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing both of them for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer 3 months imprisonment.

2. The facts in short are as under :

On 19.09.2017, one Sumit Kamble died at about 1.46 p.m. It is alleged that appellant Kamlesh Dube and Shekhar Dube committed his murder. It is the prosecution case that both accused and the deceased were working as a driver on garbage vehicle at Kanak Resources Company. On the day of incident i.e. on 19.09.2017 at about 1.46 p.m. Sumit along with his friend Rahul and Yogiraj went to the Bhandewadi Dumping Yard by riding on the motorcycle of Sumit. At said place, the sister of informant Rahul and other women were picking the garbage. Kamlesh and Shekhar both accused also went there to unload the garbage by their garbage vehicle. Kamlesh was on driving seat whilst Shekhar was sitting beside him. Kamlesh has married with the sister of deceased Sumit. Kamlesh and sister of Sumit namely Tanu were having love affair, which was not liked by Sumit. Both of them ran away and performed marriage before 15 days. On their return, sister of Sumit was staying with Kamlesh. Because of said marriage, there was dispute between Kamlesh and Sumit. They used to quarrel with each other. On the date of occurrence, when Sumit saw Kamlesh, he went to him and there was hot exchange of words between them. At that time, Shekhar alighted from truck and assaulted Sumit with

1. These applications raise an issue of jurisdiction of this Court, primarily, and were, therefore, heard together and are decided by this common order.

Interim Application (L) No. 30893 of 2022 -

2. This is an application for amendment in the petition for grant ial-30893-2022.doc of Letters of Administration to the property and credits of Claude Lila Narayan Parulekar (the deceased) so as to include additional movable and immovable properties enumerated in the schedule annexed at Exhibit A to the application.

(PER: VINAY JOSHI, J.) Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 01.08.2023 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Special (Atro.) Case No. 36/2019, whereby appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ("SC and ST Act"). The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default clause for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act whilst he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC. Both sentence were directed to run concurrently.

Through: -

Ms. Sufaya, Advocate vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The minor petitioner was born on 5th October, 2011. The case set up by the petitioner is that at the time of his birth his uncle told his biological father that since he did not have any issue, he would adopt him and, therefore, his uncle got his name entered in the parentage column of his date of birth certificate.

12.11.2024 The petitioners, through the medium of instant petition, has called in question Order No. 233 PDA of 2024 dated 6th November, 2024, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Pahalgam Development Authority-respondent no. 3, by virtue of which, all the adventure activities in Pahalgam permitted by the Director Tourism Kashmir vide No. DTK/Rec/3/2022-06/2747 dated 18th May, 2022, TDK/Rec/3/2022-06/2856 dated 29th June, 2022 and DTK/Rec/3/2022-06/3030 dated 6th February, 2023 have been suspended till formalities are fulfilled by the adventure agencies. The order further reveals that all concerned site incharges of Pahalgam Development Authority shall ensure suspension of the adventure activities with immediate effect.

Through: -

None CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 11.11.2024 This is an application filed by the petitioners to place on record the documents.

For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, by learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

08.11.2024

1. In terms of an order dated 31.10.2024, this Court came to direct the personal appearance of Ms. Sheetal Nanda, Commissioner/Secretary to Government Social Welfare Department, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for today's hearing both in the writ petition as well as in the contempt petition for the purpose of eliciting from the Commissioner/Secretary, Social Welfare Department some informative inputs as to wherefrom the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme, pursuant to which in terms of the Government Order No. 50/SW of 2014 the contractual appointments of the petitioners came to take place is reckoned to be closed as from the reading of the entire reply from the respondents, and, this Court has not come across with any order/decision, express or implied, that the posts created in terms of Government Order No. 50/SW of 2014 for the purpose of running the establishment are to be wound up in terms of a later government order/decision.

08.11.2024

1. The short grievance of the petitioners is sourced to an order No. 141 of 2007 dated 28.11.2007 in terms whereof they along with three other persons namely Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh, Bashir Ahmad Bhat and Rachi Pal came to be promoted on regular basis to the posts of Electrician in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4820 in the Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Limited.

2. In far as the original date of appointment of the petitioners in the service is concerned, the petitioner No. 1 Mohammad Shafi Dar is appointee of 1st April, 1994, the petitioner No. 2 Abdul Gani Rather of 1st April1994 in Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Limited, whereas the respondent No. 5 Imtiyaz Ahmad Beigh is an appointee of 1st July, 1996.

11.11.2024

1. The petitioner being a consolidated worker engaged by the Municipal Committee, Handwara came to be terminated/disengaged from service with immediate effect in terms of impugned order No. MC/Hand/Estt/2022-23/32-36 dated 06.04.2023 by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Handwara. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner.

2. In terms of an order dated 12.04.2023, this Court came to keep on hold the operation of the impugned order dated 06.04.2023, with a further interim direction unto the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as a consolidated worker in terms of his original engagement order dated 30.12.2006.

08-11-2024

1. The petitioner-unit through its proprietor by the medium of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged order no. 187 JK PCC of 2024 dated 15th October, 2024, whereby respondent no. 5 has directed to close down the stone crusher of the petitioner-unit under the name and style of M/s Goodluck Stone Crusher, Lasjan Chadoora B.K. Pora, District Budgam. In terms of the said order, respondent no. 5, has also directed the other respondents to take further action against the unit of the petitioner as mentioned in the impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, places reliance on an order dated 13th July, 2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in an identical matter being WP(C) No. 1418/2024 and submits that the case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid case and accordingly prayed that the same order be passed in the present writ petition as well with a view to maintain parity.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The present petition in terms of Section 482 Cr.PC came to be preferred by the petitioner namely Farooq Ahmad Dar through his brother Ali Mohammad Dar.

At the motion stage this Court vide order dated 17.11.2023, called upon the petitioner to address regarding maintainability of the present petition. thereafter, none has turned up for further prosecution of the case.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 195-JKPCC of 2024 dated 16.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 212-JKPCC of 2024 dated 18.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

Accused Nos1, 2, 12 and 15 are before this Court in these three petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2024 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC R/w 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.98/2024 was registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City against Smt Puttamma and others, on the basis of first information dated 04.10.2024 received from Sri Mallesh M, DYSP, attached to BDA, Bengaluru. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.9338/2024, Crl.Misc.9367/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.9337/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

Accused Nos1, 2, 12 and 15 are before this Court in these three petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2024 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC R/w 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.98/2024 was registered by Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City against Smt Puttamma and others, on the basis of first information dated 04.10.2024 received from Sri Mallesh M, DYSP, attached to BDA, Bengaluru. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.9338/2024, Crl.Misc.9367/2024 and Crl.Misc.No.9337/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

Heard Sri.Madhavachar M., learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Kashyap N. Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction passed in C.C.No.52961/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I.Act', for short) and confirmed in Crl.A.No.25159/2021, has filed present revision petition.

3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under;

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., by the complainant alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, against the accused contending that the complainant had entered into a Partnership Agreement dated 10.07.2014 NC: 2024:KHC:44402 with the accused for a period of one year commencing from 14.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 to engage and run the business of sale, marketing of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, etc, in the name of and style of "Quality MRP Shop", which was licenced in the name of Sri.C.M.Kumar, at Madikeri. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was invested by the complainant as capital for running the said business in the partnership and also additional amount was paid by the complainant at the request of the accused.

Accused No.1 in Crime No.321/2024 registered by Jayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 406 r/w 34 of IPC, is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.321/2024 was registered by Jayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru city, against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the first information dated 14.09.2024, received from Victim girl, aged about 25 years. During the course of the NC: 2024:KHC:45395 investigation of the case, the petitioner herein was arrested on 15.09.2024 and remanded to judicial custody.

The judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Special Court at Yadagiri in NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 Special Case No.45/2015 is assailed in this appeal by the accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.

3. Charges were framed against the accused/ appellant for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(A)(1), 504 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant/PW-1 was proceeding towards the canal in Nagaral village to wash the clothes, the accused held her hands, abused her as 'le holeya sule' and called her to sleep with him and when she resisted, he dragged her by holding her tuft, assaulted on her back with his hands and thereby committed the charged offences.

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 to 9.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court dated 05.10.2024 in O.S.No.7166/2024 passed on I.A.No.2 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 9 and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs before the Trial Court also sought for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 from enforcing or acting upon the invocation notice dated 28.09.2024 and from taking any further action regarding transfer or encumbrance of the pledged shares of Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (100%), Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (51%) or Agara Techzone Pvt. Ltd. (12%) or from enforcing any security under the Bond Trust Deed and Pledge Agreements, until final adjudication of the rights of the parties by the Trial Court and inter alia sought for the relief on I.A.No.2 to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from enforcing or acting upon invocation notice dated 28.09.2024. The respondents also filed applications and order is passed only on I.A.Nos.2 to 4. It is also borne out from the records that caveat was also filed and learned counsel for both the parties were heard and suit was filed before the Vacation Court and I.A.No.1 was filed under Section 11(3) of Bengaluru City Civil Court Act to take up the matter before the Vacation Court and the same was allowed.

1. This First Appeal is filed by defendants No.2 to 4 in O.S.No.145/2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. The suit for declaration and injunction is decreed with cost.

2. The declaration granted by the Court reads as under:

i. Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. ii. It is declared that, the decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008 is partially canceled to the extent of suit property.

iii. Defendants No.2 to 4 are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from entering their names in record of rights of suit property on the basis of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) This appeal is filed by the appellant /accused seeking to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2023 and 16.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Special Case (PC) No.25/2015 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable NC: 2024:KHC-K:8245 under Section 7 of P.C.Act, 1988, with adequate default sentences and that he may be acquitted.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) Petitioner who is complainant before the trial court has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the trial court dismissing the complainant as against accused Nos.8 to 11, by which the trial court has ordered for issuance of process against accused Nos.1 to 7, but refused to proceed against accused Nos.8 to 11 who are revenue officials.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial court.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16229

3. In support of the petition, complainant has contended that the refusal by the trial court to take cognizance against the accused Nos.8 to 11 is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The trial court has failed to appreciate that accused Nos.8 to 11 have failed to act in accordance with law. They have altered the boundaries of the property of the complainant in a manner advantageous to accused Nos.1 to 7, without issuing notice to the complainant. There are specific allegations in para 8 of the complaint regarding illegal acts of accused Nos.8 to 11 which is sufficient to take cognizance against them. Not only accused Nos.8 to 11 guilty of not providing opportunity to the complainant by issuing notice, but also in altering boundaries of the property of the complainant contrary to the documents. Complainant is required to be provided with an opportunity to establish the allegations made against accused Nos.8 to 11 and hence, the petition.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Investigation is complete. Accordingly, he prays for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits victim was a minor.

3. Learned Advocate for the de-facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. We have considered the materials on record. Victim was a minor and the petitioner subjected her to sexual assault. However, investigation is complete. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted anticipatory bail however, subject to strict conditions.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he is in custody for about two years and seven months. It is further submitted there is inordinate delay in trial. Accordingly, he renews his prayer for bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Though narcotics above commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner, we find petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 2½ years. His bail prayer was rejected in December, 2023. Thereafter only two out of nine witnesses have been examined till date. There is no possibility of trial concluding in the near future. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion petitioner has been able to make out a case of breach of his fundamental right to speedy trial and he is entitled to bail on this score. Bail prayer on the ground of inordinate delay in trial is not fettered by restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference in this regard may be made to Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

1. Petitioner/defendant challenged herein order no. 91 dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 2nd court Ranaghat, Nadia in Title Suit No. 78 of 2010. By the order impugned learned court below accepted local investigation Commission report provisionally and fixed the next date for hearing argument of the suit.

2. The brief background of the present case is that one Kumar Krishan Mondal since deceased, father of the petitioner and the original opposite party no. 1 (predecessor of present opposite parties) was the absolute owner of the land measuring about 8.25 decimal in plot no. 452 by way of deed of conveyance dated 24th August, 1955. The said opposite party no. 1, since deceased purchased 5 decimal of the land of the suit property out of said 8.25 decimal of the land from his father aforesaid Kumar Krishna Mondal by a registered deed dated 10.07.1969. Thereafter the said Kumar Krishna died intestate leaving behind legal heirs i.e. the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein, defendant/petitioner herein and another son Bimal Mondal and his widow and two daughters who jointly inherited the remaining 3.25 decimal of land of their father in the suit plot.

Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

2. We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner is involved in trafficking women for sexual exploitation. Date has been fixed for recording evidence. Under such circumstances we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

3. Application for bail is, thus, rejected. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Nobody appears for the petitioners.

2. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Ms. Sayani Ahmed Hearing concluded on : 07.11.2024 Judgment on : 12.11.2024 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present first appeal has been preferred against the grant of probate of the Will of one Late Shanti Shaw. The appellant is the son of the testatrix whereas, by virtue of the Will, the testatrix bequeathed her properties to her daughter Smt. Sabitri Shaw (the respondent's wife).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the inordinate delay in filing the probate application is itself to be construed as a suspicious circumstance vitiating the application. It is contended that the Will was purportedly executed on January 6, 1997, and the testatrix died on July 16, 1997. A previous probate application was filed on January 6, 1999 but the same was dismissed on April 17, 2002 due to non-

1. Challenging the impugned proceeding being GR Case no. 1238 of 2021, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 263 of 2021, petitioners have preferred the present Application with a prayer for quashing the said proceeding, qua the petitioners herein.

2. Petitioner contended in the Application that complainant stated in the FIR (First Information Report) that the opposite party no.2/FIR maker was introduced to Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal by one Subhash Kumar Roy and one Samaresh Das and relying upon the representation that the said Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal is a developer, the petitioner expressed his desire to join Mr. Agarwal as partner in his firm and thereafter Mr. Agarwal took the opposite party as a partner with him in his partnership firm namely "Shree Krishna Realtors". It is alleged that relying upon said representation the opposite party no.2 along with aforesaid person entered into a registered development agreement dated 18.12.2016 and it is further alleged that when the construction work commenced, said Sanjay Kumar Agarwal took control of the project and also taking advantage of the same took custody and control of the bank account, cheque books, vouchers papers etc. It has been further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 from time to time deposited money in the accounts of his said partner Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal but he did not cooperate with the opposite party no.2 herein /FIR maker and not only that said Sanjay had made huge withdrawal of funds and also misappropriated the funds of the firm amounting to Rs. 40 lacs in between August 2016 to March 2020 on the basis of false and fabricated documents and thereafter retired from the said firm on 17th November, 2020. The allegation against the present petitioners is that said Sanjay and the petitioners are jointly fraudulently took advance money from different buyers pertaining to the said project but neither executed deed nor refunded refundable money.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Special Court, Kolkata, in the proceeding being Special Case No. SEBI/39/2018.

2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had joined in Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited as an executive director on 27.04.2004, for the erection and commissioning of renewal energy power project. The said Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited is a group of companies under Amrit Projects Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. After being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, Kailash Chand Dujari, the Managing Director of Amrit Projects Ltd. and its group of companies had offered the petitioner to become director of several other group companies of Amrit Projects Ltd. After joining the said Amrit Group the petitioner was to look into the development and set up of a power project of 10 M.W. in the District of Bankura, West Bengal. The said project was successfully completed under the supervision of the petitioner. The said Amrit Project Limited had started a business receiving deposits from the public at large without consulting with the petitioner. The petitioner had tendered resignation and resigned from the said Amrit Projects Limited and all its group of companies in the year 2013.

Shashi Dungdung, aged about 24 years, S/o. Late Amrus Dungdung, R/o. Vill.- Karangagudi, Baijutoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kersai, Dist.- Simdega.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

Shashi Dungdung, aged about 24 years, S/o. Late Amrus Dungdung, R/o. Vill.- Karangagudi, Baijutoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kersai, Dist.- Simdega.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

Soleman Sheikh, S/o Shojal Shekh @ Sojal Shekh, R/o village-Shiv Mandir Kalikapur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur (T), District-

Pakur. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party. -----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. ----- Order No.02 Date: 11.11.2024

1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.81 of 2024 registered under Sections 379/420/467/468/471/34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and Rules 7/9/13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017.

For the petitioner : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P

-----

02/11.11.2024 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/353/188/307/427/ 269/270 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of Jharkhand Epidemic Disease (Covid-19) Act, 2020 and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the accused persons including the petitioner by forming unlawful assembly used criminal force against public servants deterring them from discharging their official duties. They also pelted stones on the government servants being part of 'Mangala' procession. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not seen as the member of 'Mangala' procession in the CCTV footage. Despite that he has been implicated in this case with malafide motive only due to the reason that he was actively involved in 'Ramnavmi' puja. Moreover, similarly situated co-accused persons namely, Rajesh Keshri and Rakesh Keshri have already been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2021 passed in A.B.A No. 5644 of 2021. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

1. Mithlesh Mandal @ Mithlesh Kumar Mandal, S/o of Ganpat Mandal

2. Jitendra Mandal, S/o Bajo Mandal

3. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Dhalo Mandal All residents of Panchayat Dasdih, Block Gandey, Village Margodh, P.S. Gandey, District Giridih.

.......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP