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.

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.

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 11:32:00 :::

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.

3 Present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, who has filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.106/2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. It was filed against five persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 469, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4 Brief facts narrated in the complaint are, that the original accused No.3 is the President of institution by name Anjuman Eshat-e-Taleem and accused No.4 is the Secretary. The said institution is registered as Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It receives 100% grants from the Government to run college by name Maulana Azad Higher Secondary School at Khultabad. Accused No.1 is serving as Assistant Teacher since 2011 and ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 4 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd prior to that he was serving as Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Phychology and Sociology. Accused No.2 is the Headmistress of the said school since 2008. Original accused No.5 was then Deputy Director of Education. It is contended that when accused No.1 was in service, he has completed the course of M.A. 1st part in Psychology for the academic year of 2008-09 from Vivekanand College, Aurangabad. His attendance on the Transfer Certificate of said college is said to be 75%. Thereafter, for the year 2010-11 he has completed the M.A. 2nd part in Psychology as a regular student of the said college. The college timing is stated to be 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and for 2010-11 it is from 12.00 noon to 5.40 p.m.. The Institution record shows that during the said period, he has taken only 8 days Earned Leave. This shows that accused No. 1, in conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 4, was only signing the attendance register and taking the salary/honorarium of Rs.9,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for two years. It is stated that in the past also there were instances in the said college run by the accused, in respect of payments made towards salary without candidate putting any work. That amount has been recovered by the Government. All those persons had come to this Court, however, those petitions were rejected and criminal proceedings are pending against two of them. The complainant had given a complaint application on 18.01.2012 to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. He has passed an order on 11.06.2012. It was ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 5 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd directed that the accused No.1 should deposit the entire amount, which he has received towards honorarium with the Government. Further directions were given to take action under Rule 28(5) of Maharashtra Private Schools (Terms of Service) Rules, 1981. It was also stated in the said order that since the accused No.1 has derelicted from duty, inquiry be held and after the report is received then only the further action of continuation in his service would be taken. Therefore, the continuation was not done and as the salary was not given, accused No.1 staged agitation from 09.07.2012 in front of the office of Deputy Director of Education. He was advised on 12.07.2012 to file an appeal and he was then prevented from continuing the agitation. The appeal was filed by him and stay was granted to the order passed. In view of the said stay the accused No.1 was given continuation of service. No opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his say by the Director of Education when stay was granted. The complainant thereafter filed writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6756 of 2012. In that petition the Director of Education was directed to file affidavit. Accordingly, affidavit was filed on 24.04.2013. It was specifically stated that on 17.04.2013 further order has been passed that the stay has been vacated and the order passed by Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad on 11.06.2012 is confirmed. In view of the said contentions in the writ petition, the writ petition came to be rejected. In the meantime, accused No.5 took charge as ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:24 ::: 6 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad and he gave letter on 24.06.2013, thereby cancelling the confirmation to the service given to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 had not taken any steps for inquiry in view of the order dated 11.06.2012. A false report was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education. Accused No.1 has not even deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which he had taken as honorarium for two years. Yet, after accepting the false report the accused No.5 has continued the services of accused No.1 by letter dated 26.08.2013. It has been submitted that all the accused persons with common intention with each other prepared false report, prepared false attendance register, pay bills and other documents, thereby all of them have cheated the Government as well as the students, and therefore, he says that offence has been committed by all the accused persons. He, therefore, prayed for issuing process and punishing the accused persons.

3 Present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, who has filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.106/2015 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. It was filed against five persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 469, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4 Brief facts narrated in the complaint are, that the original accused No.3 is the President of institution by name Anjuman Eshat-e-Taleem and accused No.4 is the Secretary. The said institution is registered as Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It receives 100% grants from the Government to run college by name Maulana Azad Higher Secondary School at Khultabad. Accused No.1 is serving as Assistant Teacher since 2011 and ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 4 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd prior to that he was serving as Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Phychology and Sociology. Accused No.2 is the Headmistress of the said school since 2008. Original accused No.5 was then Deputy Director of Education. It is contended that when accused No.1 was in service, he has completed the course of M.A. 1st part in Psychology for the academic year of 2008-09 from Vivekanand College, Aurangabad. His attendance on the Transfer Certificate of said college is said to be 75%. Thereafter, for the year 2010-11 he has completed the M.A. 2nd part in Psychology as a regular student of the said college. The college timing is stated to be 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and for 2010-11 it is from 12.00 noon to 5.40 p.m.. The Institution record shows that during the said period, he has taken only 8 days Earned Leave. This shows that accused No. 1, in conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 4, was only signing the attendance register and taking the salary/honorarium of Rs.9,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for two years. It is stated that in the past also there were instances in the said college run by the accused, in respect of payments made towards salary without candidate putting any work. That amount has been recovered by the Government. All those persons had come to this Court, however, those petitions were rejected and criminal proceedings are pending against two of them. The complainant had given a complaint application on 18.01.2012 to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. He has passed an order on 11.06.2012. It was ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 5 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd directed that the accused No.1 should deposit the entire amount, which he has received towards honorarium with the Government. Further directions were given to take action under Rule 28(5) of Maharashtra Private Schools (Terms of Service) Rules, 1981. It was also stated in the said order that since the accused No.1 has derelicted from duty, inquiry be held and after the report is received then only the further action of continuation in his service would be taken. Therefore, the continuation was not done and as the salary was not given, accused No.1 staged agitation from 09.07.2012 in front of the office of Deputy Director of Education. He was advised on 12.07.2012 to file an appeal and he was then prevented from continuing the agitation. The appeal was filed by him and stay was granted to the order passed. In view of the said stay the accused No.1 was given continuation of service. No opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his say by the Director of Education when stay was granted. The complainant thereafter filed writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6756 of 2012. In that petition the Director of Education was directed to file affidavit. Accordingly, affidavit was filed on 24.04.2013. It was specifically stated that on 17.04.2013 further order has been passed that the stay has been vacated and the order passed by Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad on 11.06.2012 is confirmed. In view of the said contentions in the writ petition, the writ petition came to be rejected. In the meantime, accused No.5 took charge as ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 11:32:08 ::: 6 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad and he gave letter on 24.06.2013, thereby cancelling the confirmation to the service given to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 had not taken any steps for inquiry in view of the order dated 11.06.2012. A false report was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education. Accused No.1 has not even deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which he had taken as honorarium for two years. Yet, after accepting the false report the accused No.5 has continued the services of accused No.1 by letter dated 26.08.2013. It has been submitted that all the accused persons with common intention with each other prepared false report, prepared false attendance register, pay bills and other documents, thereby all of them have cheated the Government as well as the students, and therefore, he says that offence has been committed by all the accused persons. He, therefore, prayed for issuing process and punishing the accused persons.

CRM No. 3354 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jalpaiguri Women Police Station Case No. 144/2019 dated 07.11.2019 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And In the matter of : Kalpana Roy ... Petitioner Ms. Jeenia Rudra .. for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased victim. The prayer for bail of the husband of the victim has been rejected earlier today.

It is the submission of the petitioners that the respondent nos.9 to 12 were the erstwhile tenants who are allegedly occupying the impugned premises and are presently running a quarantine center as per the Memo No. H&FW/132/2020/128 (Annexure-P/6).

Mr. Gaggar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner led by Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, submits that in spite of several representations having been made before the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station being the respondent no.8 herein and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.2 herein, no action has been taken by the State authorities.

Vs.

State of West Bengal Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Suman Banerjee ... For the petitioners Mr. Kishore Dutta , Ld. A.G. ... for the State The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to two notifications dated February 26, 2020 and March 4, 2020 by which the existing reservation in favour of the doctors has been replaced by 10 per cent weightage given to doctors serving in rural areas in all places which are locally remote.

In the earlier matter bearing writ petition no. W.P.5365(W) of 2020 which also dealt with the same notifications an order has been passed directing that the provisional list and the final list may be published as per weightage proposed in the impugned notifications in the writ petition. Needless to mention the admissions given shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition. In my view that order shall also govern the present writ petition.

It is to be noted that earlier petitioner has also filed a writ petition being WP 5064 (W) of 2020 challenging the transfer.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not join the new college due to several reasons including his ill-health. He further submits that his salary has been stopped and he has not received the salary from the month of March 2020 onwards.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, has defended the action of the university and submitted that the university had no intention to stop payment of the petitioner's salary. The same, according to him, has taken place due to the petitioner not having joined his new post even though the transfer order was issued on March 3, 2020.

And In the matter of: Amit Kumar Kamat @ Amit Kumar @ Lala...petitioner Mr. Koustav Bagchi.........for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed.........................for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hour of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

The petitioner claims that since the petitioner has been in custody for a long time and the charges are of dacoity, the petitioner should be given a reprieve temporarily.

And In the matter of : Dipraj @ Dipu Chhetri & Ors.

... Petitioners Mr. Navanil De .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking. The case of the first petitioner appears to be on a different footing than the two other petitioners. Though the names of the two other petitioners were mentioned in the initial complaint and in the eye witness' account, the first petitioner is neither named nor did the eye witness allude to him.

And In the matter of : Kheru Mondal & Anr.

... Petitioners Mr. Subir Debnath .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

And In the matter of : Sonu Singh & Anr.

... Petitioners Mr. Arka Chakraborty .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

04. 2020 b.

CRM No. 3356 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kushmandi Police Station Case No. 25 of 2020 dated 05.03.2020 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 305/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of : Jahirdur Islam @ Jahedur & Anr.

... Petitioners Ms. Jeenia Rudra .. for the petitioners Mr. Swapan Banerjee ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

ab with 01 CRAN 1583 of 2020 (Via Video Conferencing)

In the matter of : an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.04.2020 in connection with Bally Police Station Case No. 25 of 2018 dated 01.03.2018 under Sections 195(A)/506/509/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re :- Bikash Pandey @ Vikash Pandey @ Vicky ... Petitioner.

Mr. Achin Jana ... For the Petitioner. Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury Mr. T. K. Ghosh Mr. P. Bose ... For the State

ab with 02 CRAN1420 of 2020 (Via Video Conferencing)

In the matter of : an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Egra P.S. Case No. 194 of 2020 dated 21.03.2020 under Sections 341/354A/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

And In Re :- Laltu Jana ... Petitioner. Sk. Sahjahan Ali ... For the Petitioner. Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury Mr. T. K. Ghosh Mr. P. Bose ... For the State

04. 2020 b.

CRM No. 2996 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Lalgarh Police Station Case No. 117/2019 dated 22.10.2019 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

And In the matter of : Hablu Bag @ Bhatuk ... Petitioner Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra .. for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

Sri Barid Baran Roy & ors.

Mr. Anindya Bose.

.....for the petitioner.

Mr. D. Banerjee.

....for the O.P. No. 1 Mr. Arijit Bardhan.

...for the O.P. Nos. 15 & 16.

This matter has been listed at the instance of the learned advocate for the petitioner for extension of an interim order dated December 23, 2019, passed by this Bench. It is contended that all the opposite parties have been served as per the direction of the Court and the affidavit-of-service will be filed before the Regular Bench.

Mr. Bardhan, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties 15 and 16, is also present via video conference.

We see that one thing that the petitioner has sounded in the status report dated 28 th April, 2020 submitted by him is to provide undersea cable link for ensuring better connectivity and communication to the islanders. He has also pointed out that in the fitness of things it would be proper that the High Court Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court should also include an independent medical expert who can 2 advise the Monitoring Committee on medical matters. It is suggested that High Court Monitoring Committee includes a person who has expertise in the management of contagious diseases.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

With W.P. No.5334 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Dr. Vimal Khawas Ph.D With W.P. No. 5335 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Mr. Ritesh Tiwari With W.P. No. 5336 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Raja Satyajit Banerjee The order dated 28.04.2020 be corrected by substituting the word "warriors" in the place and stead of the word "worriers" in the 1 st sentence of 2nd paragraph at page 5 of the order.

Vs.

Smt. Manika Dhara (Pal) and Ors. Mr. Sakti Pada Jana ..for the Applicants Let the matter appear a fortnight hence whenever the court convenes.

The State should show cause why the State should not be directed to pay the writ petitioner's salary till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the writ petitioner undertaking to refund the same in the event the appeal succeeds.

Advocate for the writ petitioner should communicate this direction to Advocate appearing for the State and the relevant authorities well in advance of the next date of hearing.

Vs.

Kalyan Kishore Pradhan and Ors. Mr. Sakti Pada Jana ..for the Applicants Let the matter appear a fortnight hence whenever the court convenes.

The State should show cause why the State should not be directed to pay the writ petitioner's salary till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the writ petitioner undertaking to refund the same in the event the appeal succeeds.

Advocate for the writ petitioner should communicate this direction to Advocate appearing for the State and the relevant authorities well in advance of the next date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice of hearing of the writ petition was served on the DMC by mail today ,i.e. the 7th of May, 2020.

By the impugned notice the petitioner has been threatened with eviction from the premises in issue inspite of the submitted fact that the respondents/DMC is still collecting rents from the petitioner.

The petitioner also alleges that the impugned notice is not preceded by a show cause alleging any acts of omission or commission on the part of the petitioner to continue to be in possession of the premises 2 in issue which the petitioner further submits is under an active lease which has not been terminated.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification issued by the Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal dated 6.5.2020 being no. 334/MA/O/C­4/1A­1/2020 as issued by its Principal Secretary.

By the said impugned notification the powers of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) has been vested on a Board of Administrators (BOA).

2

Mr Bhattacharyya submits that the said power has been exercised in abuse of jurisdiction by invoking section 634 of the KMC Act (as amended).

The point stressed by Mr. Bhattacharyya is that the Chairman of the BOA, who is the Mayor as on today of the KMC, cannot appoint himself to the BOA as its Chairman by invoking powers in the name of the Governor as Minister of the Department of Urban Development and Municipal affairs.

-vs-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellants : Mr. Soumopriyo Chowdhury Mr. Abhishek Gupta Ms. Ishita Roy.........Advocates For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.PP Mrs. Kakali Chatterjee.........Advocate Heard on : 11.02.2020 Judgment on : 07.05.2020 Arijit Banerjee, J.: 1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12th

February, 1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Coochbehar in Sessions Trial No. 2(6) 96 arising out of Sessions Case No. 97/94, thereby holding the appellants guilty of having committed offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The appellants are two (2) out of thirteen (13) accused persons. Nine (9) accused persons were acquitted by the Ld. Trial Judge and four (4) accused persons including the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two (2) of the convicts died during the pendency of the appeal.

The prep has begun for the stars who have a hot ticket to this 2020 BRIT Awards.

Laura Whitmore put on a brave face as she hit the BRIT awards red carpet on Tuesday, three days after her friend Caroline Flack took her own life.

The singer, 28, went from barefaced to bombshell as she shared a fun video of her glamorous 'glow up' ahead of the 2020 BRIT Awards at London's The O2 on Tuesday night.