Date : 11-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

That, this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs setting aside the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, of 2015-16 (wrongly mentioned as 2005) by which he has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent 2nd set against the order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Jehanabad in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2015-16 by which he has allowed the claim of the petitioners for collection of rent after entering their name in Jamabandi to the land in question and/or to grant any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

. It is submitted that the moment the petitioner realized that his matriculation certificate records wrong name of his father and the date of birth, accordingly, through proper channel the petitioner approached the authorities of Bihar School Examination Board for getting the matriculation certificate rectified by incorporating the correct name of his father and date of birth. It is further submitted that based on the representation of the petitioner, the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was rectified in the year 1998 and the name of the father of the petitioner was recorded as Ramawatar Roy and the date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1974 as would manifest from the rectified matriculation certificate issued in the year 1998 by the Bihar School Examination Board annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application.

has held that the writ petition is not maintainable in Patna High Court CWJC No.5157 of 2020 dt.11-11-2024 view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Sidheshwar Prasad (supra) as also the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others [L.P.A. No. 822 of 2015] and accordingly it was disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner of the said writ petition to file appropriate petition under the Act, 1947. The copy of the said order has also been brought on record as Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit.

6. Dr. Anand, learned counsel for the Corporation also countered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of merit(s).

, made by the Circle Officer, Baheri, affected families, including the petitioners have though been paid some amount of compensation, however, the same is not in consonance with the guidelines issues by the Principal Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter dated 26.05.2015, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

6. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.3081 of 2018 dt.12-11-2024 appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation @ of Rs. 95,100/- each, in view of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and in light of the report submitted by the Revenue Karmchari dated 12.04.2016.

The undersigned has reserved the judgment in the present case on 19.10.2024 and same was to be pronounced on 04.11.2024. Vide order no. 38/DHC/Gaz-IIBG-7/VI.E.2(a)/2024 dated 25.10.2024 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, undersigned was transferred from Rohini Court (i.e. JMFC-02) to Dwarka Courts as JMFC-01 (NI Act). As per the aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court, the judicial officer shall pronounce the judgment in those matters which are reserved for judgement even after the transfer. Hence, the judgement in the present case is being pronounced by the undersigned in the capacity of JMFC-01 (NI Act).

BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:

1. The case of the prosecution shown of unnecessary details is, that on or before 04.12.2014, at Factory No. 103, Swastik Aluminum, Badli Industrial Area II, Delhi, accused persons taped the pipeline of IGL in a way to endanger human line to supply the gas to factory No. 102 (Ideal Udyog) and Factory No. 90 (Tirupati Udyog) and committed offence under section 336/34 of IPC. Accused persons also at the aforesaid factory committed theft of gas of IGL by supplying the same to factory No. 102 (Ideal Udyog) and Factory No. 90 (Tirupati Udyog) by tapping the same and committed offence under section 379/34 of IPC. Accused persons in the alternative on the aforesaid day and factory dishonestly misappropriated or converted for their own use the gas connection entrusted to them by IGL and thereby committed the offence under section 406/34 of IPC. Both the accused persons also tried to disappear the evidence with intend to save themselves and other offenders from legal punishment and thereby committed the offence under section 201/34 of IPC. The accused persons also damaged and destroyed the State Vs. Rajeev Gupta FIR No. 1426//2014 Page no. 2 of 30 pipelines and thereby committed offence under section 15(2) of Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines Act, 1962.

Heard both sides.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The Petitioner is the State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager at their Zonal Office, Trichirappalli. Aggrieved by the common award passed by the First Respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Chennai made in I.D.No.22 to 25 of 2007 dt. 27.7.2010 these writ petitions were filed by them.

3. The 1st Respondent CGIT by its Common Award granted the following relief to the 2nd Respondent workmen in all the WPs:-

“In the result all the petitioners in ID 22/2007, 23/2007, 24/2007 and ID 25/2007 are entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service and all attendant benefits but they are not entitled to back-wages for the whole period during which they remained out of employment of Respondent. After reinstatement into service the Management may start a process for the regularization of the workmen if and in accordance with the rules in vogue they are entitled to the same.”

This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the respondents 1 & 2, thereby rejecting the claim made by the petitioner under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and ordered for maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month, payable by the third respondent to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is his daughter. The petitioner has one daughter and one son. The petitioner had purchased a house plot comprised in S.F.No.144/2 at Koranampatti, Edappadi Taluk, Salem district, to an extent of 3744½ sq.ft., in which the petitioner also constructed a small hut and living there. It was purchased by him through registered sale deed dated 24.11.2010 vide document No.4313 of 2010. After marriage of the third respondent, due to love and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis affection, the petitioner had executed settlement deed in respect of the subject property in favour of the third respondent on 13.12.2019 vide registered document No.5380 of 2019. However, the third respondent failed to maintain the petitioner and also threatened the petitioner to vacate the hut which is put up in the settled property.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.10.2023, thereby partly allowed the complaint filed by the fifth respondent and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, in favour of the fifth respondent.

2. The petitioner is the son of the fifth respondent and the respondents 6 & 7 are the daughters of the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent got married one Kala and gave birth to the petitioner and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents 6 & 7 herein. The property ad measuring 493 sq.ft., situated at Door No.7/1, 9th lane, Narayan nayakkan Street, Pudupet, Chennai, was settled in favour of the fifth respondent by his father. It consists ground floor plus 2 floors. In the ground floor, there is an yarn company and employees are staying in the said premises. The fifth respondent's wife owned property at Chintadripet, in which the petitioner is receiving the rent of Rs.25,00,000/- per month. The petitioner is doing his business in the Chintadripet house.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2024, thereby confirming the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the second respondent, thereby rejecting the complaint lodged by the petitioner and to direct the third respondent to provide all amenities to the petitioner including food and shelter and also restrain the third respondent from torturing the petitioner and his wife.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is the son. The petitioner got married one Girija and gave birth to the third respondent and one daughter. While he was in service in the police department, he had purchased a property ad measuring 4½ cents comprised in Survey No.665/1B and 665/2 part situated at Echanari, Near Ammal Temple, Kurichi Village, Madhukarai Taluk, Coimbatore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by a registered sale deed dated 29.01.2010, bearing document No.446/2010. Thereafter, he constructed a house and was residing there.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 18.02.2000 passed by the Respondent No.2, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 27.06.2003 passed by the Respondent No.1 on an appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the punishment of dismissal from service in the year 2013 and seeking a consequential relief to reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under:-

2.1. The petitioner herein, while working as a 'Peon' in Rasipuram Branch of the respondent Bank, Salem Division, he was subjected to departmental proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet dated 21.06.1997 containing two charges. The said charges reads as under:-

These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner based on the same fact situation and as such, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2751 and 9303 of 2020

2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as 'Grade-II, Police Constable' in TSP-I Battalion, Trichy and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to District Armed Reserve Perambalur District and in the year 2004, he was transferred to District Armed Reserve Nagapattinam District and thereafter, he was transferred to Taluk Police Establishment in the year 2010 and then he was upgraded as ‘Grade I, Police Constable’ in the year 2006 and further upgraded as 'Head Constable' in the year 2011. The petitioner also claimed to have received 16 rewards for his performance and there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner through out his service.

Challenging the order of the Waqf Tribunal partly allowing the application directing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to register the T.O.Mohamed Thambi Waqf, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District as a seperate waqf, prepare a proforma report showing the "Rule of Succession" to the post of mutawalli as "hereditary", conduct a detailed enquiry among the legal representatives of the waqif/founder namely late T.O.Mohamed Thambi and appoint mutatwalli for the said waqf by following the procedures prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013) as per the intention of the waqif.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to recompute the pensionary benefits to the petitioners, who are all retired from service under the 2nd respondent management on the basis of average salary drawn by them for the last 10 months prior to their retirement and also direct the second respondent to pay arrears of pension.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with ICICI Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein by the Scheme of amalgamation with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees of Bank of Madura are protected.

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the petitioners an opportunity to exercise option notionally with effect from 1.8.2003 or any subsequent dates based on the date of cession of service, in any event as per the 9th bipartite settlement.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners were originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with the 1st respondent Bank under the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees were protected.

The accused No.2 in C.C.No.245 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows:

Conviction for the Offence under Sentence of Imprisonment Section 8(c) r/w 21(C) of the NDPS Act 12 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- in default to undergo 6 months S.I

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.

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.

1. In both appeals, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No. 4 of 2003 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] respectively.

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

2. In brief, case of prosecution is that anti corruption department received complaint from PW1 Chandrakant, who reported that one Regular Criminal Case was on the file of learned JMFC, Kallam against Gorba Sukale and three others, at his instance. In that connection, informant had approached accused no.1, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor [APP] in said court, and appellant accused demanded Rs.1,000/- to put up the case properly before the court and to take further steps of issuing warrant. Unwillingly, PW1 paid part amount and balance of Rs.500/- was decided to be paid later on. As he was not willing to pay illegal gratification, he lodged report Exhibit 54, which was entertained by PW6 Dy.S.P. Gavali, and on the strength of the same, he arranged panchas, planned trap, prepared pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 35, gave necessary instructions to the CriAppeal-704-2005+ complainant and the shadow pancha. On their instructions, both, complainant and shadow pancha, visited court. There, accused no.1 demanded illegal gratification and when informant was paying the same, it was directed to be paid to accused no.2, after which pre- determined signal was relayed by informant, leading to further trap and apprehension of accused persons. Thereafter, PW6 lodged report, carried out investigation, chargesheeted both accused, who were made to face trial before learned Special Judge vide above referred Special Case No. 4 of 2003 and on appreciating prosecution evidence as well as defence witnesses, learned trial Judge, by impugned order dated 29.09.2005, held both accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act, respectively. Said judgment is now subject matter of the appeals before this Court.

-

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

11.11.2024

1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the recommendations made by the State Level Evaluation Committee (SLEC) in its 4th meeting held on 09.10.2024, whereby the petitioner's technical bid was marked as "non-responsive." This decision was based solely on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria specified under Clause 2.2.2.5(iv), "...iv. In case of project executed by applicant under category 3 and 4 as a member of Joint Venture, the project cost should be restricted to the share of the applicant in the joint venture for determining eligibility as per provision under Clause 2.2.2.2. In case statutory auditor certifies that the work of other member(s) is also executed by the applicant, then the total share executed by applicant can be considered for determining eligibility as per provision under clause 2.2.2.2"

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 has filed this petition under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarika Surksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to grant him anticipatory bail in Crime No.126/2024 of respondent Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections of 406, 419, 420 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. In support of his petition, petitioner has contended that he has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not involved in any other criminal case. Though the alleged offences are non bailable, they are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The complaint is an after thought cock and bull story created by the complainant. The alleged incident has taken place on 27.06.2024, but complaint is filed on 10.07.2024. The inordinate delay in filing the complaint is not explained.

Petitioners are seeking quashing of the charge-sheet filed in C.C.No.503/2023 and the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Deodurga, taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 171 (f) of IPC, Sections 177 and 192 (A) of IMV Act, 1988 and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981.

-3-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8071

02. In brief, the charge-sheet allegations are that, petitioners being the driver and owner of an Ambulance bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AK-6853 has exhibited a photo of one Sri. Shivanagouda Nayak, a BJP candidate and the said Ambulance was parked in front of Nadagoud Hospital, Arakera.

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.

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 29.06.2017 passed in S.C.No.762/2014 by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the appellant -accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for brevity) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 years offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC.

IN RE: B.K.NAGARAJAPPA

6. The petitioner Sri B.K.Nagarajappa had served the Corporation between 05.04.2021 to 30.06.2022 as General Manager. Previous approval has been granted for the purpose of investigation as regards the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:45706 PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå 1 PÀ®§ÄVð f¯Éè, PÁ¼ÀV ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.79/2022 gÀ PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 409, 420, gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ 2 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.56/2023, PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 420 ¸ÀºÀ 149 L¦¹ 3 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.07/2023, PÀ®A-

The petitioner - accused is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.No.1338/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the 'IPC' for short).

-3-

NC: 2024:KHC:44321

2. Heard Sri. Hemanth Kumar K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. R. Rangaswamy, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.A. Prathap, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The second respondent is the complainant, registers a complaint on 28.03.2024 for the afore quoted offences. The crux of the complaint is that the complainant and the petitioner get acquainted to each other in the year 2021, while they were working together. The narration in the complaint that the friendship blossomed into relationship and the relationship was physical as well. Further allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner had physical relationship with the complainant on the pretext of marriage or on the promise of marriage. The promise having been broken is what leads the complainant to register a complaint with the jurisdictional police for the aforesaid offences. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet and the matter is presently pending as a special case in 1338/2024 for the afore quoted offences.

SEBI and Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies have not filed their reports.

2. Investigating Officer is directed to communicate this order to the officer concerned of SEBI as well as Mr. P. K. Dutta, learned Advocate who ordinarily represents SEBI as well as the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies for due compliance.

3. Let the matters appear on 25.11.2024.

4. Interim order passed earlier shall continue for a period of four weeks from date or until further orders, whichever is earlier. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

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.

12.11.2024 jb.

jdt.

Allowed C.R.M. (SB) 150 of 2024 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 31/2022 dated 06.02.2022 under Section 380 with added Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Prasanta Jana ... Petitioner.

Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sandip Kr. Mondal Mr. Sumit Routh ... For the Petitioner.

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

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

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits there was an intimate relationship between two young persons. They had eloped and married voluntarily. He prays for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits victim is a minor.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Statement of the minor supports the contention of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion no worthwhile purpose would be served in committing the petitioner to custody. Accordingly, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding being GR No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, under Sections 354A/354B/323/506/509/188/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners' case is that G.R. No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Smt. Mita Roy, wife of Shri Pradip Roy, residing at 8B, Abhoy Mitra Street Police Station-

as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.

Darogi Yadav @ Bhupati, aged about 40 years, S/o. Shri Bodhan Yadav, R/o. Vill.- Dudhania Tola, P.O.- Khaira Block, P.S.- Cherko Pathar, Dist.- Jamui, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

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

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

Moola Satyanarayan Reddy, aged about 49 years, s/o late Rama Reddy, r/o House No.4-150/1, Janambhumi Nagar, Mancherial, PO, PS & District- Mancheril, Telengana-504208 ... Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Superintendent of Police, Chief Investigating Officer, NIA ...... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

-------

For the Appellant : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. PP Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.

-----

03/12.11.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/325/354-B/379/452/ 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the petitioners tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and also snatched the gold chain from her neck worth Rs.95,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the neighbours and relatives of the informant. They have been implicated in this case by the informant due to previous enmity. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no. 17 of the present application. They also undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Chandan Singh, aged about 24 years, S/o. Kuldeep Singh, R/o. Toiladungary, P.O. & P.S.- Golmuri, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

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

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. ------ 03/11.11.2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 231/2024 arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 13/2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 468/2024, for the offences registered under Sections 341/323/325/307/302/504/506/120(B)/34 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of Sri B.K. Sahay, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur.

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.

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner: Mr. P. K. Roy For the State: Mr. S. P. Jha, A.P.P ----- 03/11.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 341/323/307/504/506/34 IPC has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He along with his wife has been roped in this case by the informant due to land dispute. Even if the contents of the written report are taken to be true, the informant sustained lacerated injury on his left eyebrow and there was bleeding from his left nostril. He was advised to undergo X-Ray of skull and CTC of head, however, he did not undergo the said scanning. The injuries sustained by the informant have been found simple in nature. The said fact has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the present anticipatory bail application. The petitioner, however, undertakes to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

1. Md. Sonu Ansari @ Javed Akhtar, S/o Hasib Ansari.

2. Akramul Ansari, S/o Enush Ansari.

Both residents of Neori, P.O. Neori Vikash, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi.

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

-Versus-

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

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP

-----

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.

Faziran Khatoon wife of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

2. Gulam Hussain, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

3. Gulam Ali, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

4. Hassain Raza @ Hasnain Raja, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro ... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Neha Kumari daughter of Umesh Ravani, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro .... ... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. Order No. 05 Dated: 11.11.2024 The petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/354/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

-----

03/12.11.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/307/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 assaulted the informant's husband due to which his left leg got fractured. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, there is no specific allegation against him. The dispute between the parties arose due to a drainage. Even if the content of the written report is taken to be true, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had no intention to kill the informant's husband as admittedly, he sustained fracture injury on his leg. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no. 13 of the present application. They also undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.