CS(COMM) 336/2019 Page 1 of 21

2. Case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiff is dealing in the medicinal and pharmaceutical product under the mark AMADAY which is used for treatment of high blood pressure, heart disease and the defendant is selling its drug under the name ANADAY which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark and amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's rights in its trademark; even though the drug produced and sold by the defendant under the trademark ANADAY is used for treatment of breast cancer.

3. As per the plaintiff, plaintiff first obtained the title in the trademark AMADAY by its first application bearing No. 747783 on 10th July, 1997 and thereafter started using the said trademark AMADAY from 2001. On 4th February, 2008 defendant filed its application bearing No. 1649587 for the impugned mark ANADAY which was duly opposed by the plaintiff and the defendant did not pursue the said application and vide order dated 15 th March, 2016 of the Trade Mark Registry, the same was declared abandoned. On 8th October, 2016 defendant filed another trademark application for registration of the trademark ANADAY vide application No. 3384539 in Class 5 which is currently pending. In the third week of June, 2019 the representative of the plaintiff came across defendant's medicinal preparation AMADAY at Delhi, and hence the suit.

2. This petition has been moved by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 30.04.2020 by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to the respondent/accused in FIR No.111/2000 dated 06.04.2000 under Sections 420/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, which has been investigated by the Crime Branch. According to the petitioner/State, during investigations of an extortion case relating to FIR No.249/1999 dated 13.11.1999 under Sections 387/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station DBG Road Delhi, the Crime Branch came to know that some persons were conspiring to fix the India-South Africa Cricket Test CRL. M.C. 1468/2020 Page 1 of 26 Series to be played in the months of February to March, 2000 whereunder five One-Day matches and three Test matches were to be played at various places in India. The accused/respondent is alleged to have played a major role in fixing these matches, as it is alleged by the petitioner/State that he was the main link between the players and an alleged Syndicate which was running betting on these matches and had profited hugely from these match fixings as they controlled the outcome of each of these matches.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 5 th November, 2016, defendant No. 1 went to her parents' place along with her belongings and valuables and despite the best efforts of the plaintiff and her husband to try to settle the disputes between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to save their marriage, due to adamant behaviour of defendant No. 1, no result was forthcoming. Defendant No. 2 thus filed the divorce petition on the ground of fraud and cruelty against defendant No. 1 which proceedings are pending before the Family Courts, Rohini. Since defendant No. 2 is also not residing in the suit property and has filed the divorce petition, defendant No. 1 has no right to come to the suit property. The suit premises is neither the matrimonial home of the defendant No. 1 nor a shared household.

W.P.(C) 3062/2020

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to a mandate that the travellers of Delhi Metro Rail should provide proof of their identities and addresses while purchasing Metro cards from Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

W.P.(C) 3062/2020 Page 1 of 2

4. Petitioners, who appear in person, state that Delhi Metro Rail Corporation issues digital Metro cards or tokens (digital monies) to its customers, who in turn use it as travel coupons. They state that linking of Metro card and token with the address proof of the travellers would protect the right to property, in the event, the Metro card or token is lost. They further state that in the wake of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is of utmost importance that the respondents should be aware about the details of the passengers travelling by Delhi Metro as it would help in preventing a patient from travelling and would also help in tracing the affected travellers in case a patient had unwillingly travelled in Delhi Metro.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking immediate relief for the Rohingya families living in three different settlements in Delhi (i.e. Khajuri Khas, Shram Vihar and Madanpur Khadar) on the ground that they have been denied relief under the various relief packages announced by the Government of Delhi to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

W.P.(C) 3063/2020 Page 1 of 3

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that despite order dated 11th May, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 859/2013, the respondent has failed to provide basic amenities such as safe drinking water, sanitation, medical aid and education for their children. The relevant portion of the order dated 11th May, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) 859/2013 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

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.

1. The present public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The writ petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a number of directions. The prayer clause is reproduced hereinbelow:-

W.P.(C) 3068/2020 Page 1 of 8

"a) the respondent no.1 (Union of India) be directed to stop respondent no.2 (Govt. of Haryana) from doing all these restriction activities in violation of their orders dated 15.04.2020;

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.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the notice/ result dated 21.05.2019 published by the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for Delhi Judicial Services-2018 (in short, 'DJS 2018') under the category of Persons with Disabilities (PwD) was rejected on account of his mental disability not being found to be permanent W.P.(C.) No.5948/2019 Page 1 of 50 in nature. For this, the Disability Certificate issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (in short 'AIIMS') has been relied on by the respondent.

2. Briefly stated that the facts of the present case are as follows:

CM(M) 769/2018 with CM APPL. 27219/2018

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.04.2018 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner that the petition filed by the Respondent under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Arbitration Act) impugning award dated 14.07.2016 was liable to be dismissed because Respondent had not deposited 75% of the awarded amount as stipulated in Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium CM(M) 769/2018 Page 1 of 16 Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act).

2. Respondents had issued a Tender Enquiry for procuring Cover Water Proof 9.1 M x 9.1 M. The bid of the Petitioner was accepted by the Respondents and contract dated 05.04.2005 was entered between the parties.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 3rd February, 2005 in RCA No.98/1997 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi] partly allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the respondents/defendants against the judgment and decree [dated 27th September, 1997 in Suit No.436/1996 of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi] allowing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants, for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and recovery of possession of Shop No.47 U.B., Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. The First Appellate Court, while has upheld the decree insofar as of dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, has set aside the decree for recovery of possession of the shop aforesaid.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal appeal under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 05/03/2020 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby applicants have been convicted under Sections 452 and 323/34 (2-counts) of IPC to undergo 1-1 year and 3-3 months alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/-, and Rs. 500/- each respectively with default stipulation.

Also heard on I.A. No.2537/2020, an application under THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1428-2020 (PAPPU @ VIRENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the applicants.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Applicant has been arrested on 13.2.2020 by Police Station Crime Branch, Gwalior in connection with Crime No.30 of 2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S.411 and 414 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that allegation of misappropriation of amount of Rs.2 crore has been levied against the present applicant. It is submitted that the amount was being taken for depositing in the bank and belonged to M/s Gupta Traders which is corroborated from daily cash summary annexure P/2. Dinesh Gupta is the proprietor of the firm. The investigation in the matter is over and the charge sheet has been filed. The offence does not carry punishment for more than three years and the offences alleged against the applicant are 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.11826.2020.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Applicant has been arrested on 12.1.2020 by Police Station Pahadgarh district Morena in connection with Crime No.133 of 2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S.326, 147, 148, 149, 336, 323, 324, 325, 294 and 506 of IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.162/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 49(A) of Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that 5 liters of country made liquor is said to have been seized from the present applicant. He was not arrested on the spot. Investigation is over in the matter and charge sheet has been filed on 23.3.2020. He is in custody since 12.03.2020 and prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application submitting that the report from the FSL has been received and the liqour seized from the present applicant was found to be 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13147/2020 (Batri Khan vs. State of M.P.) harmful for human consumption. However, factum of completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet could not be disputed. There is no criminal history of the present applicant.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.56/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case, 63 bulk litres of illicit country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Investigation is over in matter and charge sheet has been filed. He is in custody since 10.03.2020. The applicant undertakes to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. He further submits that looking to the pandemic situation of COVID- 2

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants have filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicants have been arrested by Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.83/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicants that 90 litres of liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicants. They are in custody since 2.4.2020. It is further submitted that there is no criminal history against the present applicants.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13180/2020 (Mukesh Rai & Ors. vs. State of M.P.) PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal appeal under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 16/03/2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sheopur, whereby applicant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 452 and 325, 323/34 of IPC undergo 6 months, 6 months and 1 months and applicant No. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 452 and 325/34, 323 of IPC to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1583-2020 (RAMCHARAN GURJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) undergo 6 months, 6 months and 1 months alongwith fine of Rs.2000/-, Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- each respectively with default stipulation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal appeal under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 13/03/2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby applicant has been convicted under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC to undergo six months and three months alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-, 00/- respectively with default stipulation.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1601-2020 (LALARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Also heard on I.A. No.2869/2020, an application under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the said liberty of bail. Hearing of this revision will take sometime, and therefore, the suspension of the jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail by way of suspension of sentence.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situations due to the outbreak of Novel Corona Virus COVID-19 and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application is being heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented through their respective counsels through VC and therefore, norms of social distancing/physical distancing were followed in letter and spirit.

Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter would be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Gwalior whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail has been rejected. Appellant is in custody since 7.3.2020 in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2020 registered at Police Station Hastinapur district Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 34 of IPC and 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocities Act.

2. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received information on 10/04/2007 that one Ravi Sharma alias Gudda is dealing with fake Indian currency notes and he is coming at bus stand with fake currency notes. SHO- Vijay Pratap Singh called two Panch witnesses Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Md Jakir khan (PW-3). and after informing them recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/1) and moved to spot along with panch witnesses, ASI Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-8), Constable Arvind Pyasi (PW-7), Swatantra Singh, Arvind Dubey, Mahesh Yadav, Satya Narayan (PW-4), Rahees Khan, Pramod Pandey, Shailendra Chaturvedi and driver Chandra Prakas in Government Vehicle No.M.P.03 5682 3 and recorded that outgoing in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31).

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).

2. The facts of the case of prosecution, in short, is that the applicant-Shobharam, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Secretary of Village Panchayat, Jainabad and applicant-Suresh was Panch of Village Panchayat, Jainabad. 200 quintal wheat and 100 quintal rice was allotted to Village Panchayat, Jainabad for distributing among labour workers engaged under Village Employment Scheme. Rice was entrusted to the applicants to distribute the same, however, instead of distributing the rice to the labour worker, both applicants conspired with other co-accused and tried to sell out that wheat and rice to one Dilip Jain. Concerned authority after receiving the information, seized the truck and registered FIR for the offence under Section 406, 409, 420 of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court i.e. the Court of JMFC, Burhanpur in Criminal Case No.592/2005 framed charges against the 3 applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 414 read with Section 511 of IPC.

For respondents : Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocates in their respective petitions. Law laid down Significant Para Nos. Reserved on : 26.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R)

This batch of petitions is involving the similar question and issue, therefore, are being decided concomitantly.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of W.P. No.20394/2012 are being taken-up.

-6-

W.P. No. 20394/2012 & connected petitions

For Respondent No.2/State: Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

Law laid down Suit for specific performance of contract- readiness and willingness for a seeking decree of performance of contract, the plaintiff is required to produce strong documentary evidence relating to his financial condition- only oral evidence in respect of financial condition to establish readiness and willingness is not sufficient- The Court cannot assume or presume the financial status of the plaintiff only on the basis of oral evidence- The suit of specific performance of contract cannot be decreed in favour of the plaintiff unless readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is proved by the plaintiff.

Law laid down Significant Para Nos.

Reserved on : 04.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, since pleadings are complete, the matter is heard finally.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that he was working as 2 W. P. No. 1763/2020 Chairman/President of Municipal Council, Khandwa, by virtue of his election and certificate issued by the Returning Officer on 04.12.2014. The tenure of the President in the Municipal Council is over and the respondents/State is inclined to appoint an Administrator who is a Government Officer.

For Respondent/University: Shri Samresh Katare, Advocate.

Law laid down Significant Para Nos.

Reserved on : 12.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, therefore, they are heard finally. For the purpose of convenience, facts of W.P. No.1157/2019 are being taken- 2

W. P. No. 1157/ 2019 & W. P. No. 1011/2019 up.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

8

W. P. No. 6095/2020

12. The Commissioner, vide order dated 28.02.2020, has finally decided the appeal and set-aside the order of the Collector holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get the ten marks of BPL because admittedly, the name of her husband was not there in the BPL list before the date of issuance of the advertisement, but it was added only on the last date of submitting the applications i.e. 20.07.2015, whereas the advertisement was issued on 07.07.2015. The Commissioner, therefore, observed that if the ten marks of BPL card are deleted from the total marks awarded to the petitioner, then her total marks adds up-to 61, whereas respondent No.5 secured 64.50 marks and as such, she secured first position in the list and the Commissioner directed the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development, Sidhi, to issue order of appointment in favour of respondent No.5 cancelling the appointment order of the present petitioner.

2. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received information on 10/04/2007 that one Ravi Sharma alias Gudda is dealing with fake Indian currency notes and he is coming at bus stand with fake currency notes. SHO- Vijay Pratap Singh called two Panch witnesses Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Md Jakir khan (PW-3). and after informing them recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/1) and moved to spot along with panch witnesses, ASI Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-8), Constable Arvind Pyasi (PW-7), Swatantra Singh, Arvind Dubey, Mahesh Yadav, Satya Narayan (PW-4), Rahees Khan, Pramod Pandey, Shailendra Chaturvedi and driver Chandra Prakas in Government Vehicle No.M.P.03 5682 and recorded that Ravangi(outgoing) in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31).

2. The case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is that on 28/11/2018 father of the Prosecutrix (PW2) lodged a missing report bearing No.54/2018 (Ex.P/4) at Police Station Industrial Area, Satlapur to the effect that he is residing in a rental house of Jumman, opposite to Tapti School, Satlapur having six daughters, elder one prosecutrix aged about 12 years 10 months is studying in Class-8 th in Megha Vidya Mandir, not found in the house since morning also alleged some jewallary, ATM and money are missing. Placed a doubt on Appellant Neelesh Ahirwar who residing in the same building .

3

3. On the basis of said missing report, case of missing person (Ex.P/5) and first information report (Ex.P/6) for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC registered against suspicious Neelesh Ahirwar at Crime No.325/2018. The matter was taken into investigation. After recovering Prosecutrix she was sent for medical examination, report Ex.P/13 had been obtained. Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix were recorded and on her statement, accused were arrested. On the basis of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., Sections 376, 506 and 120-B of IPC were added in the case against the accused/appellant and other co accused Bablu. Medical examination report of the appellant is Ex.P/11. Forensic Science Laboratory, Sager report Ex.P/22 received in this regard. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the competent Court against the appellant along with co-accused Bablu Ahirwar.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant got married with respondent No.1 as per Muslim rites and rituals. Respondent No.2 is father-in- law, applicant No.3 is mother-in-law , applicant No.4 is sister-in-law of the applicant. The applicant has been living in matrimonial hose along with all the respondents since marriage. Respondent No.1- husband of the applicant and respondent No.3-mother-in-law of the applicant are having joint title and possession of the questioned house (matrimonial house) where the applicant is living. While she was living in matrimonial house, she gave birth to a girl child, but, all the respondents wanted a male child, therefore, harassed her in so many occasions, beat her and did not allow her to go outside and when she got chance to go outside, she immediately filed a report against the respondents and 3 also filed an application under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and prayed for maintenance and restriction order not to interfere in the possession of the applicant in her matrimonial house. The applicant also filed an application under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act for interim order.

- 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. Syed Rizwanul Haque, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ariyari PS Case No. 86 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 instituted under Sections 302, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPL PP For the Informant : Mr. Indrajit Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barauni (Refinery) PS Case No. 521 of 2018 dated 06.11.2018 instituted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N K Agrawal, Sr. Advocates Mr. Vikramaditya and Mr. Amnesh Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, 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.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kundwa Chainpur PS Case No. 174 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019 instituted under Sections 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a)/41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bihariganj PS Case No. 294 of 2019 dated 01.09.2019 instituted under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Naushad Uzzoha with Mr. Shafiur Rahman, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gopalganj Excise Case No. 374 of 2019 dated 29.10.2019 instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018

3. It is alleged that from the house of the petitioner 6.480 litres of wine was recovered.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 70 of 2019 arising out of Maner PS Case No. 179 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019 instituted under Sections 341/323/354/504/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 8/12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 54 'D' of the I T Act.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No 7, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, 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 Nautan PS Case No. 184 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019 instituted under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of kidnapping the brother of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not named in the FIR and only on suspicion has been arrested. It was submitted that because the petitioner was apprehended in Nautan PS Case No. 185 of 2019, he has been also made accused in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that there has been no recovery from the petitioner.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== 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 seeks bail in connection with Raushanganj PS Case No. 129 of 2019 dated 10.07.2019 instituted under Sections 302/328 of the Indian Penal Code.

... ... 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.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== 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 seeks bail in connection with Khutauna PS Case No. 116 of 2019 dated 17.11.2019 instituted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 272, 273 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a0 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. The allegation against the petitioner and three others is that from the Bolero vehicle he was driving, 405 litres of Nepali countrymade wine was recovered.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, 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 Kankarbagh PS Case No. 233 of 2019 dated 27.02.2019 instituted under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code.

Late Navi Hasan @ Navi Hasan Miya

2. Jafrani Khatoon @ Zafrin Khatoon, female, aged about 24 years, W/o Md.

Ezaj Kadri Both resident of Nardiganj Bazar, P.S.- Nardiganj, District- Nawadah ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== 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 seeks bail in connection with Kalyanpur PS Case No. 80 of 2019 dated 27.04.2019 instituted under Sections 272 and 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

... ... Appellant Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education, New Secretariat, Patna.

4. The Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

6. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Pravin Kumar Sinha, Adv.

Amicus Curiae : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG -IV Mr.Sri Shyed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA) Date : 20 -04 -2020 Judicial system in India has to face two adage one is justice delayed is justice denied and another is justice hurried is justice buried. However, in spite of above two adage, one thing remains i.e. to provide timely justice, which is an essence of rule of law and appreciating the same, clause 40 of Magna Carta provided "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice." Speedy justice was also mandate and there are Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1827 of 2017 dt.20-04-2020 2/56 catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, which holds it to be a fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria

2. Guddu Poddar Son of Arjun Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.-

Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria

3. Rajkishore Poddar Son of Gujo Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.-

Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria

4. Bhola Poddar Son of Mulo Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.-

Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :