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,

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no notice for arrest as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat in the order dated 12.04.2020, (Annexure P-1) has been received, he be permitted to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to approach the Court again, in case, needs so arises.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid with the clarification that the petitioner will be bound to file notarized affidavit, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:48:29 ::: CRM-M-12079 of 2020 Vakalatnama and deposit the requisite Court fee within a period of 10 days after the lockdown is over.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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

----

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

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

Notice of motion.

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

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

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

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

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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

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

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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

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

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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

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

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

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners. In fact, it is a case of version and cross version, wherein, both the parties received injuries. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and it was after a period of 3½ months from the date of occurrence, an offence under Sections 326 IPC was added.

It has been further submitted that petitioner No.1 - Jarnail Singh, who was alleged to have been armed with Kapa has been attributed a simple injury. Petitioner No.2 - Jaspal Singh @ Jagpal Singh, who was alleged to be armed with a dang, too was attributed a blunt simple injury.

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

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

Prayer in the application is for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR bearing No.37 dated 05.03.2020, under Sections 376 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 IPC were added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar.

FIR was recorded on the statement of ABC (name withheld). She stated that in the year 2018, she alongwith her female friends had gone to the house of Jassa son of Kashmiri Lal for Lohri, where Jassa clicked group and individual photographs of the complainant and her friends. In February 2018, Reena Rani wife of Rui Das, sister-in-law of Jassa, called the complainant to her house and took photographs of the complainant with Jassa. Reena made Jassa and the complainant sit in a room and bolted the door from outside. When Jassa and complainant were alone in the room, 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:11:25 ::: CRM-M-12084 of 2020 {2} Jassa sexually assaulted the complainant. Somehow the complainant managed to get door opened and went back home. Jassa started harassing, black-mailing and threatened her. Later on, the complainant narrated the entire incident to her mother and submitted a complaint before the police authorities.

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.

PRESENT: MS. GURSHARAN K. MANN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.

MR. GAURAV DHURIWALA, SR.DAG, PUNJAB.

MANOJ BAJAJ, J.(ORAL) Kamlesh Verma @ Kiran Mummy has filed this petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.56 dated 9.5.2019 under Sections 376- D/120-B IPC, Police Station E-Division, District Amritsar. The petitioner is in custody since her arrest on 18.2.2020. The above FIR in question was initially registered at Police Station Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar as Zero FIR and was later on forwarded to District Amritsar where the above FIR was recorded.

As per the allegations, the victims had voluntarily left their house on 31.7.2018 and reached at Amritsar, where they came in contact with two persons, namely, Gagan and Vicky. They both promised a job for them and took them to the house of Vicky, where they raped the victims repeatedly. Later on, the victims were sent to other persons as well and accused Simmi facilitated the illegal sexual activities at her residence. Gagan used to send one of the victims outside the town as well. One of the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:07:10 ::: CRM-M-12077-2020 (O&M) -2-

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the allegations in the FIR, the police party headed by ASI Baldev Raj, who is also the complainant in the case noticed that a motorcycle was coming and on seeing the police party, the driver of the motorcycle became perplexed and the person who was sitting on the pillion rider seat has thrown a black polythene bag on the road and the Heroin spread over the metaled road. Thereafter, the said ASI collected the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:00:35 ::: CRM-M No.12060 of 2020 (O&M) 2 Heroin and put the same in a polythene bag and on weighing it came to 20 gms. It is further stated in the FIR that the driver of the motorcycle informed his name as Arjun i.e. the petitioner whereas the person who was on the pillion rider told his name as Sandeep @ Zora.

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.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Royal Star Securities (Regd.), which is an outsourcing agency and was given a contract by the Sonepat Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sonepat for providing security to its bank. It is further argued that initially, the contract was terminated by the bank for which he has filed CWP No.27543 of 2017 in which notice has been issued for 08.07.2020. It is also submitted that, thereafter, the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:55:09 ::: CRM-M No.12031 of 2020 (O&M) 2 agency was blacklisted by the Bank and he had filed another writ petition i.e. CWP No.12409 of 2018, which is also ordered to be heard with the first writ petition. It is also submitted that subsequently the FIR has been registered with the allegation that the petitioner has not deposited the Provident Fund, ESI, service tax, etc. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the charges were framed on 24.02.2020. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the subsequent zimini orders vide which the case was fixed for prosecution evidence but the same is not completed despite a lapse of 60 days prescribed under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is requested that the petitioner be granted the default bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in any other case and the FIR is just a counter blast to the writ petitions filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia submitted that the petitioner, who is a lady has been behind bars for almost 05 months. Further, a perusal of the FIR in question clearly reveals that no specific allegations have been levelled against her. It is thus very evident that she has been arrayed as an accused only because she happened to be the wife of the main accused - Navjot Singh. It has been further contended that she is confined in the Central Jail, Patiala, where one COVID-19 positive case too has been found. Hence, she be granted the concession of regular bail due to the prevailing outbreak of COVID-19 and also because the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.

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

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

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

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

SQ Pathan 1/1

PER COURT :

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

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

PER COURT :

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

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

PER COURT :

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

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

PER COURT :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Present review application has been filed by original appellants for review of judgment and order dated 1st August, 2019 passed by this Court in aforesaid First Appeal.

2. Present review applicants are the original claimants, who filed MACP No.256/2013 before learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (herein after referred to as the ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:49:35 ::: (2) Review Appln.No.199/2019 Tribunal) for getting compensation for the accidental death of one Hanmantrao Manikrao Deshmukh, on whom present review applicants were depending.

2. Admit. With consent of learned Advocates for the respective parties, taken up for final disposal.

3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(2) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for challenging the order of rejection of bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No.46/2020 on 21.1.2020 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna.

2. Since arguable points are made, the appeals are admitted.

3. By consent the appeals are taken up for final disposal. ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:31:54 :::

3 CriAppeal 114-2000 +1

4. Both these appeals have been filed by the original accused in Crime No.03 of 2020 dated 08-01-2020, registered with Mahur Police Station District Nanded for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(3), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by present respondent No.2. These appeals have been filed as per the provisions of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.