1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 85, dated 12.09.2023, under Sections 379-B(2), 341, 336, 411, 201, 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shekhwan, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of Kawaljit Singh S/o Kuldeep Singh R/o House No. 177 Loharka Road, Gali No.9 NRI Colony, Amritsar aged 49 years. M. No. 98884-30028. Stated that I am resident of aforementioned address and is doing work of Fashion Designer at Amritsar. My in-laws are residing in village Talwandi Jangla. My father in law name is Sucha 1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145797 Singh son of Mohan Singh. Today I along with my wife Sarabjit Kaur aged 40 years went to meet my in-law's family at village Talwandi Jangla on Bullet Motorcycle No. PB-02-DV-4128 colour black. After meeting them at around 07:00 PM I along with my wife left for our house and at around 07:20 PM when we reach Qullian on Qadian to Batala road then one motorcycle came from back on which three boys were sitting. Two were clean shaved and one was in turban. They park their motorcycle in front of my motorcycle and stopped us. The boys told us that we should give them motorcycle and when I refused then one Hindu clean shaved person took our pistol and fired three shots in air to make us afraid. They took away my bullet motorcycle colour back No. PB02-DV-4128. I informed police by calling at 100 number and you have come at the spot."

1 This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case F.I.R. No.0108 dated 19.09.2021 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

2. Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 255 grams of heroin.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 years, 1 month and 17 days. Trial is proceedings at snail's pace as by now only 5 out of 11 witnesses could be examined.

1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR No.159, dated 05.07.2017, under Sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149 of IPC (challan presented under sections 353, 186, 341, 332, 323, 148, 149, 201 IPC), registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Further prayer has been made for staying all the consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR during the pendency of the present petition.

1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145330

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.31-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (a) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145123 CRM-M-1189-2017 [2] proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused failed to pay any contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1, which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(a) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016.

1. Relief Sought This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 69 Dated 02.03.2023 registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Kharar District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :-

'Statement of Gagan Kumar Son of Paramjit Singh Resident of House No.-2213/55 C New Vijay Nagar Street No-3 Tajpur Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana aged about 26 years, stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and working in a private job at Ludhiana. My brother-in-law Rajinder Singh son of Hardev Singh Village Post Office Mahauli Khurd Police Station Sandour District Malerkotla (aged about 33-34 years) who used to work for car sales and exchange at Kharar who lived on rent at Sri Krishna Dairy Sante Majra Colony Kharar near Swaraj Nagar that on dated 18-2- 2023 my brother-in-law came back from Gurgaon Haryana. With whom I spoke on the phone, who told me that I will come to 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880 Ludhiana on Monday.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 121, dated 08.08.2023, under Sections 307, 379-B(2), 411, 473 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural.

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of Rahul Rathore son of Satpal Rathore son of Kabrika Singh resident of Back side of Rythem Place, Mandi Mullanpur PS Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, aged about 23 years, Mobile no:

82831-59149, it is stated that I am resident of above mentioned 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836 address and I started learning the work of denting-painting after passing my 10th class in year 2015-16. Now I have one workshop situated near Mini Holland, Mandi Mullanpur under the name and style of B.R Motors. Yesterday 07.08.2023 at about 4:40 PM I took my car make Swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 whose denting-painting work was pending to Car Bazar, Ayali Chowk, Ludhiana from my workshop and at about 5:20 PM I took my car from said Car Bazaar and was going to Mullanpur and on my way I took some smoking material (Cigarettes-Bidi etc.) from one Khokha Shop) situated on the left side of PTCE Badowal from Railway Crossing Badowal and I along with my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu resident of Mandi Mullanpur in said car make Swift were smoking, meanwhile two young persons dressed as Nihang Sikhs came near our car and they were standing there and they got stopped us and asked that where are you going, on which I told them that we are going to Mullanpur. They told me that our motorcycle is out of fuel and kindly took us along with you. On which I took both the said Nihang Sikhs along in my car and we left from there. Meanwhile when we reached at main GT Road and turned towards Mullanpur City then one of the Nihang Sikh called to some person and told that our motorcycle is out of fuel, kindly refill the fuel and stand near PTCE Badowal and get me communicate with that Khokha (shop) owner and took motorcycle from there. Thereafter when my car reached in front of the Baba Zahir Bali Badhowal then the Nihang Sikh who was sitting on the back seat took out his pistol and pointed it towards the temple of my friends namely Sagar @ Bhalu. I stopped my vehicle, on which my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu ran away towards backside after opening the door of the car and both the Nihang Sikhs present in the car told that get out from the car otherwise we will shoot you. I protested for the same then the Nihang Sikh sitting on the back seat of the car opened a fire shot of his pistol towards me and it hit on the bicep of my left arm and pierced through it and the other Nihang Sikh pulled me out from the car by opening the door and took me out from the car and both the said Nihang Sikh snatched my car make swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 and ran 2 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836 away towards Mullanpur Mandi Side. There was flow of blood from my arm, due to which several passers-by got together at the spot and I took lift from some motorcycle rider and reached at my workshop at Mullanpur Dhaka, Where one Birbal took me to Civil Hospital Sudhar in his car make Creta. They referred me further to Civil Hospital Ludhiana and from there I was got admitted to Bhiwan Hospital, Kaccha Malk road, Jagraon by my father namely Satpal Rathore after arranging a vehicle. Here my treatment is going on. Kindly take required legal action against both the said unknown Nihang Sikhs. I have got recorded my statement to you, heard it as correct. SD/- Rahul verified by SD/- Satpal Rathore attested SD/ - Dharminder Singh ASI PS Dhaka dated 08.08.2023"

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.32-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (e) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145104 CRM-M-614-2017 [2] 85 (e) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused have failed to submit the return of contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (e) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1 which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(e) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016.

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for second time seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR no.0608 dated 10.12.2023 under Sections 22(C), 29, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of trial.

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR read as under :-

'Respected Sir, To the Station House Officer, Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. Today on 10.12.2023, ASI Matlub Hussain No. 207/AMB HSNCB UNIT AMBALA, ASI SANDEEP KUMAR 75/A, EASI SURENDRA SINGH NO.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 16 of the reply dated 14-10-2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 331 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

2. 497 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

3. 715 1998 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

4. 920 2004 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

CRM-43453-2024 Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3 is granted and the same are taken on record with just exceptions. CRM-M-54564-2024

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 168, dated 25.04.2024, under Sections 21(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS added later on), registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak.

1 of 9 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145894

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking quashing of FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 20.11.2013, registered under Sections 307, 115, 120-B B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar, chargesheet/final report under Section 173 of the Code, the order dated 13.01.2015, whereby the petitioners were ddeclared eclared as proclaimed offenders as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated ed therefrom.

2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by respondent No. 2/complainant 2/complainant Karanveer Singh on 20.11.2013 alleging that on the same day, he along with his partner Maninder Singh was present in his office situated at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Phase 2, Jalandhar, when at about 03:30 PM, 1 of 15 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868 CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -2- two youths having muffled faces entered inside his office, whereas two persons remained outside the gate and stairs of his offic office. The youths, who had barged into his office, were armed with pistols and when the complainant complain asked them about the reason for their coming there,, they opened fire with their pistols upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant, however, managed to save ave himself by by throwing a chair towards them and the bullets so fired hit on the side of his cabin after piercing through the chair and then hit the roof. On raising alarm, alarm, all of them fled away from the spot. The complainant disclosed that he identified one one of them as Parshotam Kumar, resident of Bijnor. He also alleged that said Parshotam Kumar was having enmity with his brother Vikramjit Singh, who was residing in Norway and was going to get permanent residency. Harminder Harminder Singh, father of the complainant, complainant recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code disclosing that he was proceeding towards the office of his son, when two car cars were noticed while going from the side of the office. One of those cars cars,, which was Indica make, was driven by accused Parshotam Parshotam Kumar and three persons were sitting therein. He also disclosed that in the second car, which was Tata 207 make, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka were sitting and he already knew them. The statements of Vikramjit Singh, who was also present pre in India at that time, and other material witnesses were also recorded.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the verdict drawn on 15.01.2020, upon Sessions Case No.63, of 2017, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, wherethrough, in respect of a charge drawn for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, he recorded a verdict of conviction against the convict-appellant. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of 16.01.2020, the learned trial Judge concerned imposed, upon, the convict- appellant both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as sentence(s) of fine, but in the hereinafter extracted manner.

"5. The convict has been proved to have committed murder of a young boy without any provocation on his part. The convict is, thus, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years."

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein prays for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, whereby the election(s) for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pona, Cluster No.4, Block Jagraon, District Ludhiana, has been cancelled just few hours before the start of polling, thus inter alia on the ground, that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has been condemned unheard, besides is beyond jurisdiction. The petitioner further seeks the making of a mandamus, thus directing the official respondents to immediately hold the elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pona, Cluster No.4, Block Jagraon, District 1 of 21 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146136-DB Ludhiana, between the candidates (i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.8) whose nomination papers were validly accepted and to whom election symbols were allotted by the Returning Officer.

1. Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 20.09.2022, upon Sessions Case No.74 of 15.02.2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherethrough in 1 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145851-DB CRA-D-1106-2022 AND CRA-D-62-2023 (O&M) -2- respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellants-convicts. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner:

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

1. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions to the Respondents authorities in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition for not declaring the land as the forest land of the petitioner of Mauza- Targachha of Khata No. Khesra No. 1 of Thana No. 517 of Area 27 acres 61 decimal of District- Banka which belongs to the petitioner upon which, this petitioner planted the trees and cultivated the land twice a year.

Date : 12-11-2024 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

(i) For issuance of the appropriate writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions to the respondent authorities to upload the revenue details of the piece of the Land situated under Mauja- Katari, Thana No.182, Khata No.297, Plot No.189, Area 74 decimal on the Website of the Revenue Department, Government of Bihar and issue online Revenue Receipts with regard to aforesaid Land in favour of petitioner.

as contained in Memo No. 274 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Nawada to the extent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his regularization has been turned down.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working as daily wager against Class-IV Patna High Court CWJC No.2171 of 2019 dt.11-11-2024 post since long. Despite his continuous services for a long period, when his claim has not been considered for regularization, he moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15428 of 2010. The learned Court having considered the grievance of the petitioner has disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Nawada, to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforenoted direction, the petitioner filed a detailed representation. However, the claim of the petitioner has turned down by Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is put to challenge.

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

For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the respondent concerned to pay the compensation of the land/house of the petitioner which has been acquired for construction of Babura-Doriganj approach road and bridge as per the rate prescribed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 12 decimal land of petitioner bearing Khata No. 2623, Khesra No. 1916 and 1918 was acquired by the State Government vide Land Acquisition Case No. 01/12-13 for construction of Babura- Patna High Court CWJC No.4465 of 2018 dt.11-11-2024 Doriganj approach road and bridge. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have paid compensation to the petitioner in the year 2017 as per the rate fixed in the year 2012 though in the year 2014 new rate has been fixed by the competent authority and hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per rate fixed in the year 2014 as well as the rate prescribed for commercial buildings. It is submitted that in spite of several requests made by petitioner, the concerned respondent authority has not paid the enhanced compensation.

which was notified by the Bihar Government vide letter No. 14/DLA-Margdarshal- LA Act (Bharat Sarkar)-238/2013-1342 dated 14.12.2015 in the light of Section 24 (i) (a) of the Provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioners in the light of Market value of the land on 01.01.2014.

(iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are entitled under the law in the light of fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

and submitted an inspection report on 11.05.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the inspection report dated 11.05.2024, the only allegation, which has been made, is regarding enhancement of charges in respect of hajri form disproportionately and Patna High Court CWJC No.10426 of 2024 dt.12-11-2024 discontinuance of the share of Advocates and Advocate clerks in the same, resulting in resentment in the Bar, apart from some allegations being made in the said report regarding functioning of the Committee during the period 2022 to 2024, for which the petitioner is not responsible, inasmuch as his financial power had been seized vide letter dated 19.07.2023.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

being done in the light of Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006, it was agreed that the builder shall provide flats of super built up area of 2.25 times of their given land admeasuring area of 2000 sq.ft. i.e. 4500 sq.ft. to each of them along with a parking space for a four-wheeler vehicle with each flat. In view of clause 5 of Development Agreement, a Patna High Court MA No.296 of 2021 dt.12-11-2024 separate supplementary agreement was also executed on the same day between the owners and developers for determination of actual share portion wherein the builder agreed to give three flats each of 1440 sq.ft. as follows:-

1. Ms. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent.

2. This is an Appeal against conviction. By impugned judgment dated 07.10.2024, passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Session Trial Nos. 38 of 2020 and 39 of 2020titled as 'State vs. Shahrukh', appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 4/25 of Arms Act respectively. Under Section 302 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant has further been directed to undergo two months' additional imprisonment. Under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant has further been directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Appellant has filed this Appeal through Jailor, District Jail-Haridwar.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.673 of 2024, under Section 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun. She has sought her release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 25.10.2024, 50.17 grams smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the alleged recovered quantity is less than commercial; there is no independent witness; there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act; she is not a previous convict.

2

1. Ms. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent.

2. This is an Appeal against conviction. By impugned judgment dated 15.10.2024, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO), Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2024 titled as 'State vs. Mahendra Kumar', appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 5j(ii), 5(1), 5(n) of Prevention of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') read with Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and under Sections 5j(ii), 5(1) and 5(n) of POCSO Act read with Section 376 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty- five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to undergo two years' additional simple imprisonment. Appellant has filed this Appeal through Superintendent, District Jail-Almora.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.138 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused have already been granted bail.

4. This fact is admitted by learned State Counsel.

5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. The bail application is allowed.

2

7. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the revisionist.

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(a) The judgment and order dated 19.12.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.929 of 2021, Devchandra Purshoda Vs. Chardham Construction, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal ("the case").

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State.

3. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm registered under the provisions of Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is a contractor under the category of work contract and services. The petitioner's company was issued a notice under Section 61 of the Act on 25.10.2023 for scrutiny and assessment of the petitioner's business and the returns submitted by it.

Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the revisionist.

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(a) The judgment and order dated 19.12.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.930 of 2021, Devchandra Purshoda Vs. Chardham Construction, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal ("the case").

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.257 of 2023, dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 28.04.2023.

2

1. Ms. Neelima Mishra, learned counsel through Legal Aid for the appellant (via V.C.).

2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. This is an admitted appeal, admitted on 07.03.2024. Now, the Trial Court record has also been received and the paper book is prepared and supplied to the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Heard on bail application.

6. The present appellant- Rohit has been convicted pursuant to the judgment and order dated 30.04.2022, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO)/District and Session Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Special Session Trial No. 10 of 2019, State vs. Rohit and another, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC, 5 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC, 10 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and 10 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 5(l)/6 of the POSCO Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

1. The present appellant- Dheeraj Singh Kushwaha has been convicted pursuant to the judgment and order dated 10.05.2022, passed by the 2nd Addl. Session Judge, Haldwani Nainital in S.T. No. 27 of 2020, State vs. Dheeraj Singh Kushwaha whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 323, 376 read with Section 511, 354(ka)(1), 354 (gha), 506 IPC read with Section 66E and 67 of the I.T. Act and the maximum sentence as awarded by the Trial court is 7 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 50,000/-

1. Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant - convict against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2019 (State Vs. Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakki) whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 (b) of the NDPS Act with a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of three month.

The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found.

1. Ms. Shumayla Zafri and Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, learned AGA assisted by Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents no.1.

3. Heard.

4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the First Information Report No.0587 of 2023 dated 15.12.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC registered with Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun.

Mr. Manish Lohani, learned counsel, for the petitioner.

2. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand/1 to 4.

3. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel, for respondent no.5.

4. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel, for respondent no.6.

5. In this writ petition allegedly filed in public interest, petitioner has challenged notification dated 03.09.2024, issued by Urban Development Department, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby village Kania, has been included in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar. The said notification has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Board of Nagar Palika Parishad in its meeting held on 30.04.2022, had taken a decision not to extend boundary of Nagar Palika Parishad, not to include the areas falling within two kilometres from the adjoining Corbett Reserve Forest within the municipal limits. He further contended that since the villages, which have been included in Nagar Palika Parishad, have been declared as fruit belt, therefore, they cannot become part of Nagar Palika Parishad. It is further contended that the parameters laid down by Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India have not been followed while issuing the impugned notification

1. Mr. M. S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant - convict against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2021 (State Vs. Shubham) whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.162 of 2024, State Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal, in FIR No. 467 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar,, pending in the court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Petitioner is defendant in Original Suit No.27 of 2014 (now re-numbered as Civil Suit No.06 of 2023) filed by respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital. The said suit was, thereafter, transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, on account of higher valuation of the suit property. Respondent filed the said suit for eviction against the petitioner contending that petitioner's status was that of a licensee qua the property in question and since the license has been terminated, therefore, he has no authority to continue in possession thereof. Petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in the said suit contending that the suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said application has been rejected by learned trial Court vide order dated 05.12.2023. Petitioner challenged the said order in Civil Revision No. 01 of 2024. His Revision Petition too has been dismissed by learned First Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital vide judgment dated 24.09.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.1 of 2022, dated 03.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. It is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been rejected on 05.06.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

Ms. Medha Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Mr. Mayank Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.3/wife.

4. Objections are taken on record. Accordingly, IA No.2/2024 stands disposed of.

5. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner/accused for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.8505 of 2022, 'State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rajendra Singh', for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun; Charge sheet dated 14.08.2022; F.I.R./Case Crime No.0484 of 2021 dated 08.12.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.

3. Petitioner has impugned order dated 23.09.2024 issued by respondent no.2 (annexure no.4), passed under Section 271 AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1961").

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner was employed with Van Vikas Nigam, who expired while still in service on 15.01.2018 leaving behind the petitioner and other legal heirs. The death benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner to the tune of ₹24,00,000/- were transferred to the account of the petitioner. On receipt of ₹24,00,000/- in the account of the petitioner the income skipping assessment was undertaken by the respondent-Department on 11.03.2024 and a tax liability of ₹39,00,000/- inclusive of interest was imposed upon the petitioner. This order was passed under Sections 147/144/144-B of the Act of 1961. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 12.09.2024 before Joint Commissioner (Appeals).

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

BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:

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

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely, Samsher Singh against the accused, namely Vinod Kumar in respect of the dishonour of six cheques bearing no.415029 dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.45000/-, no. 415028 dated 25.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415027 dated 15.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415026 dated 01.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415031 dated 09.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and no. 415030 dated 07.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- all drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi Branch (2120) Maharaja Aggrasen Shopping Complex, LAX-7, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheques in question").

1. By this judgment, I shall decide present claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, filed by the petitioners/ legal representatives of Mr. Yugal Kishor (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who sustained fatal injury in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Important facts of the case as per the claim petition and the documents annexed thereto are that on 06.11.2020 at about 03:30 p.m., the deceased as pillion rider on a scooter (make-Activa) bearing registration no. HR51AN-8607, being driven by his colleague Dev Narayan Thakur at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road, was going to his house from his workplace. When they reached near Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration no. HR63B-5016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), being driven by the respondent no.1 Sunil at a high speed, rashly and negligently, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from the back side and hit the scooter with a great force. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and came under the wheel of the offending truck and sustained head injury. The deceased was immediately removed to Medanta Medicity Hospital, Gurugram, where his MLC was prepared and he was declared 'brought dead' and his postmortem was conducted at Mortuary, Civil Hospital, Gurugram.

2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 03.04.2017, ASI Usman Ali vide DD no. 3A had received an information regarding the present accident. He also received a call from Trauma Centre that the present accident had occurred. After receiving the call from Trauma Centre, ASI alongwith Ct. Mukesh reached the Trauma Centre and collected MLC no. 214228 of injured Raj Kumar. As per MLC, the doctor opined that the injured was "unfit for statement". IO met with an eye witness in the hospital, whose name was Guddu. IO recorded the statement of eye witness. Witness has stated that Raj Kumar had met with an accident when he was crossing the road on foot near Yamuna River. Eye witness, with the help of the driver of the offending vehicle, sent the injured to the hospital in the offending vehicle itself and went to the hospital by his motorcycle. On the basis of the MLC and statement of the eye witness, the offence under Section 279/337 IPC was found to have been committed.

Sh. Anoop Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased. None for driver and owner.

Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.

Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners U/s 166 & 140 M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the present claim petition till its realization being legal representatives of deceased Sunil Verma (married aged 25 years) on account of death of deceased who died in road traffic accident in question which occurred on 02.09.2018. The petitioners also prayed for compensation MACP No. 754/18; FIR No. 206/18 DOD:12.11.2024 for irreparable monetary loss, mental agony, loss of love and affection and future prospects plus all other heads of compensation as per entitlement, caused due to accidental death of deceased.