1. Leave granted.

2. The moot question in this appeal emanating from the judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 39418/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh1 is: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:16 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation?

1. The present judgment will dispose of two appeals preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. One appeal (CA 2969/2010) has been preferred by the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereafter,"Gujarat Urja"or "GUVN”) ；the second (CA 2793/2010) has been preferred by CLP (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly, Gujarat Torrent Energy Corporation Ltd; later, Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation Ltd, a generating company, hereafter collectively "CLP”). Both appeals challenge a common order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity（“APTEL” hereafter).

2. The erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) (now “Gujarat Urja”) entered into a power purchase agreement (“PPA”）with CLP on 03.02.1994. In terms of the Signature Not Verified PPA, Gujarat Urja was under an obligation to purchase - and CLP was under Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:10 IST Reason:

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur1 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 271/1982, whereby the conviction of the respondent No. 1/original accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Mr. Chhagna Ram) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code2 has been converted into one under Section 326, IPC and the substantive sentence awarded therefor is reduced only to the period already undergone (about five months) by the accused No. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:39:58 IST Reason:

1. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application, Mr. Aftab Uddin Laskar seeks bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Algapur P.S. Case No.100/2020, under Sections 420/409 IPC.

3. The gist of the accusation made in the FIR, gist of the issue raised by this application and the defence of the applicant-accused are contained in order dated 23.04.2020. For Page No.# 2/4 brevity's sake, the said order is extracted hereinbelow:

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Jangsher Ali, (2) Omar Ali, (3) Kayum Ali, (4) Sobur Uddin and (5) Badsha Miya, seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 207/2020 registered under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 369(K)/2020.

As per the FIR of the case, the present accused petitioners along with 11 (eleven) named accused persons and 10 (ten) to 15(fifteen) others illegally entered the land that belongs to the father of the informant around 08:00 in the morning on 01.03.2020 while they were planting rice paddy saplings armed with dao, stick etc. and attacked his family members namely, Ainul Hoque, Saniara Khatun, Jahiruddin, Rupchand Ali, Sukur Ali, Hanif Ali and killed his uncle Ainal Hoque.

1. The applicant, namely, Mukut Rabha, APS serving in Assam Police, as accused in Tinsukia P.S. Case No.1608/2019, under Sections 454/379/ 331/468/471/ 166/167/193/209/211/218/220/221/34 of IPC has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. J. Dutta, Page No.# 2/4 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

Let this matter be listed in the first week of June, 2020 on a date to be fixed by the Registry. On the next date so fixed, this matter will be taken up for its disposal.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

List for Admission after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Interim order is extended till the next date.

Page No.# 2/2 JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Considering the same, matter stands adjourned today. List after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

On instructions, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no such criminal case has been filed against the petitioner in Jalukbari Police Station and as such, prays for withdrawal of this pre-arrest bail application with liberty to file afresh as and when any cause of action arises.

Prayer is allowed.

Liberty as prayed for so granted.

Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Registry shall obtain scanned/Photostat copies of the records of G.R. Case No. 2581/2019 pertaining to Dergaon P.S. Case No. 843/2019 from the Court the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared.

Page No.# 2/2

4. List on 11.05.2020.

5. It is made clear that in case counsel for the applicant does not appear on the next date of listing, the case is likely to be decided on the basis of available record and on hearing the learned counsel for the prosecution.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant be informed accordingly telephonically.

7. Let copy of this order be provided under the signature of the Court Master.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. S Munir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Page No.# 2/3 Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

4. I have gone through contents of the FIR. The applicant has been named as accused No.1 in the FIR and is stated to be aged 27 years.

5. The FIR has been registered at the instance of father of the victim to the effect that on 19.8.2019, at about 7-00 PM, the applicant took his minor daughter to his house by tempting her that he would get married to her and had sexual intercourse with her. The other accused thereupon got angry on seeing her and they abused her using abusive language, surrounded her, threatened her, pulled her with hair and drove her away.

1. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application, Mr. Mridul Das seeks bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Ambari P.S. Case No. 393 of 2019, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/406/403/506 of the IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared.

4. The application has been pending since 27.11.2019, when an interim order granting anticipatory bail was passed in favour of the applicant. Under the circumstances, I find no Page No.# 2/3 justifiable reason to await appearance by the counsel for the applicant.

1. The applicant, namely, Jeherul Islam has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with Kalgachia P.S. Case No.812/2019, under Section 366(A) IPC.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

3. I have heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent.

Page No.# 2/2

4. I have taken into account the accusations made by the informant who is the father of the victim. It has been alleged that on 23.10.2019 at about 6.15 PM, the applicant along with his associates came in a Maruti car, entered the house, asked the victim to serve water and in the meantime forcefully caught hold of her from the back, gagged her mouth and dragged her to the vehicle. Being helpless, she raised an alarm. Neighbours came there. On seeing that the neighbours had come, the accused fled.

By this application under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioner namely, Pranab Kr. Sharma is seeking pre arrest bail apprehending his arrest in All Women Police Station Case No. 57/2020 registered under Sections 376/313/498(A) of the IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 4553/2020.

The informant on 29.03.2020 lodged a written ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station alleging that the petitioner raped her prior to her marriage with him.

Page No.# 2/3 On 14.05.2018 the petitioner married the informant secretly at Kolkata Kalighat Temple and Court marriage between them took place at Guwahati on 18.12.2018 before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup Metro, Guwahati. It is also alleged by the informant that because of their wedlock though she was pregnant, the petitioner forcefully aborted her. It is stated by the informant that she is serving in the office of the Assam Real Estate and Infrastructure Developer's Association (AREIDA) at Guwahati since 2015 and that the petitioner is the lone Director of the said Office and that at present she is residing in the house of the petitioner at New Guwahati. The informant also stated that only after her marriage with the petitioner she could come to know that she is his fourth wife. The informant alleged that the petitioner is physically and mentally torturing her, has his eyes on the money of her mother and her family members and that he is harassing her in all counts of her life and may even through her from the house at New Guwahati wherein she is residing now and from her job at AREIDA.

7) Munnaf Ali, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon PS Case No. 207/2020, corresponding to GR Case No. 369 (K)/2020, under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC.

Heard Mr B Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr N Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

Also perused the record and the Case Diary produced.

It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr Kalita that so far as the accused Page No.# 3/3 petitioners, namely, 1) Imdadul Hoque and 2) Bilat Ali are concerned, their sufficient implication have been given by the eyewitnesses, regarding the commission of the offence.

2. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Page No.# 2/3 Presiding Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant did not appear on 14.03.2020, 16.03.2020 and today again. This application has been pending since 02.03.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been appearing consistently. I find no justifiable reason to adjourn the matter for any longer period. In any case the application is being disposed of considering the statutory provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act.

1. By way of thisjudgement, weshall dispose of the above-noted appeals preferred against the common order dated 19.03.2018, whereby Appellant's (VIPL) objection petitionsunder Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter 'the Act')have been rejected, and common arbitral award dated 20.05.2017 stands confirmed.This impugned arbitralaward deals with two separate claim petitions preferred by the Appellant relating to respective Space Buyer Agreements(hereinafter 'arbitration agreements')concerning separate portions of same property. Since the objection petitions have been disposed of vide a common judgment, wealso consider it convenient to dispose of theappeals vide a common judgement.

1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

OMP (I) (COMM.) 95 & 96/2020 Page 1 of 4

2. Petitioner, by the present petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Act"), inter alia seeks a restraint on the respondent from invoking and encashing the performance bank guarantees issued by respondent no. 2 on behalf of the petitioner and further seeks a direction to respondent no. 1 to release the payments due to the petitioner under the relevant contracts.

3. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 is a Performa party.

4. Several contracts have been executed between petitioner and respondent no. 1 for provision of services, personnel and equipment. The contracts were executed as part of a composite transaction for the performance of services between petitioner and respondent no. 1 and are subject to and governed by Master Services Agreement and Master Supply Agreement.

C.R.P. 57/2019 & CM APPL.9037/2019 (for interim relief), CM APPL.9038/2019 (for calling Trial Court record)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.01.2019 whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application under Order 23 Rule 1(1) and 1(3) Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) filed by the Respondent and C.R.P. No. 57/2019 Page 1 of 9 permitted the Respondent to withdraw the Suit with liberty to file a fresh Suit for damages.

2. A License Agreement was entered into between the parties on 19.09.2015, whereby Petitioner had agreed to license part of its premises in commercial complex known as "Worldmark 1" located at Asset Area 11, situated at Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The license was entered into for a period of 15 years for the purposes of running of multi-tenanted Food & Beverage concepts under the brand and style of Epicuria.

The petition is being filed by the petitioner and challenge is being made to the order dated 04.03.2020, whereby the petitioner is directed to retire on completion of 62 years of age. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Physical Instructor and is equivalent to Teacher as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma, in W.A.No.613/2016. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the Clause F of Regulation 8 of Ministry of Human Resources and Development Department as under :-

"(f) Age of Superannuation :- (i) In order to meet the situation arising out of

shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teacher in Central Education Institution has already 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.7385/2020 (Gopal Prasad Shivhare Vs. Union of India & Others) been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F.No.1- 19/2006-U.II dated 23.03.2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. Letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30-03-2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of vice- Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities).

- Gorgama, P.S.- Salkhua, District - Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parijat Saurav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Imadpur PS Case No. 55 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019 instituted under Sections 341/323/324/325/307/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act 1985'), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 240/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulations.

2

2. As per case of the prosecution, on 12.01.2014, Police Officer- Shankar Chandrakar, In-charge of Government Railway Police, Raipur received information that two persons carrying contraband article ganja are traveling in train Ahmedabad Express. On the basis of said information, the Police Officer with other staff reached to the spot and recovered ganja to the tune of 38 Kg. from the appellant. After complying with all the legal formalities, the matter was investigated, appellant was charge- sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted as mentioned above.

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

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Dhanbad seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia;

a) Whether rules or instructions issued by Director General, Railway Board in East Central Railway, Dhanbad are valid or not,

b) Whether or not the rules/instructions as per the RBI No. 61/2015, letter no. E(N-G)1-2015/R E-3/2 dated 12.06.2015, is valid in the matter of re-absorption of the medically unfit RPF/RPSF employees into an alternate position? Provide a certified copy of the said rule,

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on three points, including, "(a) What action has been taken on the appellant's application regarding making adjustments to the alternative post in Samastipur division (East Central Railway),

(b) What action was taken by the Screening Committee on the appellant's application, which was received by Electronic Grievance Redressal Arrangement (EGRS) vide no. 24652 on 05.12.2017, regarding the adjustment of the optional post, and

(c) To provide certified copies of all the documents along with the complete file in the name of the appellant, available with the Screening Commissioner, including the written application accepted by the appellant for the clerical post."

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on six points pertaining to technician post, including, inter-alia;

a) Is the proof of validation issued in the railway hospital by the screening committee on the optional post after medical distortion valid,

b) What is the medical category for the post of Technician Grade-III,

c) Does the post of technician grade-III fall in the category of sedentary job. And other related information.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 09.05.2018, provided point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied by the information provided on point nos. 3 and 6, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.05.2018. FAA, vide order dated 15.06.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on similar grounds and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information regarding General Conditions to Contract applicable to the works (contracts) under Eastern Railways for the year 2000, 2003 and 2010-2018.

2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 13.07.2018, offered inspection to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 30.07.2018 requesting to provide the information sought for. FAA, vide order dated 28.08.2018, upheld the reply of CPIO. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of incomplete information furnished by the CPIO and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the respondent.

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

a) Reason for 75% reduction of Pension,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased had been married for almost 15 years and no complaint whatsoever was ever lodged against the petitioner by the complainant prior to the occurrence in hand. It has further been contended that all the material witnesses including the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile before the trial Court.

The learned State counsel on the other hand has vehemently opposed the grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner by contending that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the deceased. He, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:14:39 ::: CRM-M-44316-2019 [ 2 ] however, has not been able to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and other material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution during trial and were declared hostile by the trial court.

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

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

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

SQ Pathan 1/1

PER COURT :

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

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

PER COURT :

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

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

PER COURT :

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

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

PER COURT :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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