2. Before venturing to decide on the questions raised, it would be profitable to state the relevant facts.

The 1st respondent is the K.M.J Public School, represented by its Manager. The 2nd respondent is the Principal of the said school. The petitioners 1 and 2 have been working as drivers for the past 14 and 9 years respectively in the said school whereas the petitioners 3 and 4 have been working as sweepers in the same institution for the past 8 years. They contended that they have been receiving wages at less than the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government by various notifications and also as per the directions issued by this Court in State of Kerala vs Mythri Vidya Bhavan English Medium School and another1. They contended that a person junior to them, 1 [2013 (1) K.L.T short note 36] W.P.(C) No.14087/2019 4 who was a Class-IV grade employee, was drawing a much higher wage as compared to the petitioners. According to them, they are entitled to higher amounts toward salary from 1.7.2013 onwards.

2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this petition are that in the above dispute raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour court was called upon to adjudicate a reference wherein the issue was "whether the denial of employment of Smt.Ramani Amma, Smt.Geetha.G. and Geetha.R, who were employees of Western India Cashew Company, was justifiable and if it was found otherwise, the relief for which they were entitled to."

3. The case of the Union, which espoused the cause of the workers, was that the delinquent workers were employed by the management in their packing centre at Puthentheruvu, Karunagappally. Since 26.10.2012 was a public holiday owing to Bakrid, the factory was closed. On 27.10.2012, when the workers reached the factory, they were denied employment by the Management. The Union raised an industrial dispute and the matter reached the District Labour Officer, who convened a conference. In the meantime, a WP(C) No.12490/2018 3 show cause notice was issued to the workers and consequently on 2.11.2012, the workers were suspended from service pending enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed who proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report with the finding that the workers were guilty of all charges. Banking on the said report, the workers were dismissed from service with retrospective effect. According to the Union, the enquiry which was conducted was a farce and is therefore vitiated. The principles of natural justice were violated and the management failed to bring home the charge. They also contended that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against the workers.

"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed against the properties of the petitioners which is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent bank for the debts due from the third respondent.

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction quashing all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thriruvananthapuram, finding that the property sought to be taken possession is not a secured asset of the 1st respondent.

"That CISF No.902292498 Constable K. Lakshmanan of CISF Unit, NMPT Mangalore was W.P.(C) No. 28322 of 2015 4 detailed for B' Shift duty on 29.05.2009 from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs along with No.721370091 HC/GD K. Sreedharan at K.K. Gate-Out. Shri K. Korappan, AC, CISF Unit NMPT Mangalore, while carrying out surprise checking at 2055 hours on 29.05.2009 along with SI/Exe R.R. Singh, In-charge(CIW), Shri K. Korappan directed to SI/Exe R.R. Singh to conduct pocket checking of B' shift duty personnel deployed at K.K. Gate. Accordingly SI/Exe R.R. Singh conducted pocket checking of Constable K.Lakshmanan in presence of No. 753460102 ASI/Exe P.K. Thampy, In-charge, KK Gate and No.773430028 HC/GD Kuttan Pillai K.K., Main Gate-In and found an illegal money of Rs.1573/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred seventy three only) in possession of Constable K. Lakshmanan in various denominations and the amount was seized which was kept hidden between his belt and waist. When asked by Shri K. Korappan as to where the money came from and why he kept such huge amount with him, Constable K. Lakshmanan did not give any satisfactory reply. Immediately a seizure list was prepared wherein signature of witnesses were obtained. In this regard, a GD has been made at Sl. No.1324 at 2117 hours on 29- 05-09 at KK Gate. As per Unit standing instructions, duty personnel are not allowed to keep more than Rs.10/- for refreshment purpose during duty hours.

2. Alleging non compliance of the award, the 2nd respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, Ernakulam as C.P. No.9 of 2016 WP(C).No.40468/2018 3 claiming a total sum of Rs.12,39,802.02/- which includes interest of Rs.4,84,600/-. The said claim petition was partly allowed by the Labour Court and the 2nd respondent was awarded a sum of Rs.7,55,202.02/- by excluding the interest which was claimed. Being aggrieved by the quantum of amount awarded and the denial of interest, the 2 nd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.33527 of 2017 which is pending before this Court. The petitioner is stated to have remitted a sum of Rs.7,55,202/- as ordered by the Labour Court.

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:20 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:20 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 04.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.05 12:19 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

Ordered accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

The prayer is allowed. The date of hearing in the main petition is preponed from 13.08.2020 to 05.05.2020. The same is taken on Board and is permitted to be withdrawn.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.05.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.

PARAMJEET SINGH 2020.05.06 14:02 I am approving this document

When this case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of these petitions, the petitioner has been retired on superannuation, therefore, these petitions have been Page 2 of 2 SWP No.34/2017 in SWP No. 893/2017 rendered infructuous and may be dismissed as such. His statement is taken on record.

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous along with connected CM(s).

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

" CERTIORARI: quashing the letter No.ENT/DCS/2014/2010- 215 dated 17.11.2014 whereby the District Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner), Samba (respondent No.2) has provided respondent No.3, the list of employees of the office of respondent No.3 who have been deployed for election duties and called for training as per the schedule mentioned against each".

2. Since the Legislative Assembly Elections, 2014 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir are already over, therefore, this petition with the afflux of time has been rendered infructuous.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 26.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Urgency application and Exemption application, to exempt the applicant from filing the affidavit in support of the urgency application and to exempt the applicant from depositing court fees, are filed by the applicant during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown.

The urgency application and the exemption application are not opposed by the State.

The urgency application is allowed accordingly. The exemption application is accepted with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 and Notification No. 89/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 18.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the applicant.

The learned Government Advocate requests two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 27.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA, for the State. Urgency application (IA 4734 of 2020) is allowed.

Let the affidavit of the pairiokar be filed and the court fee be deposited within three days of the opening of the lockdown. Exemption application (CRMA 1160/2020) stands disposed of accordingly.

Heard on the bail application. Having been implicated in the Case Crime/FIR No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, PS Cyber Crime, District Dehradun, the applicant is in jail.

Learned Counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of doubt; applicant was not named in the FIR; two FIRs have been registered on the same cause of action and the appellant has been granted bail in the main case and there is no other pending case against the applicant except these two and he is in jail since 23.9.2019.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

At the request of learned counsel for the State, list the matter on 14.05.2020. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State may file objections. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List the matter on 21.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State.

Exemption Application no. 1143 of 2020 is allowed.

Heard.

Admit the appeal.

Summon the lower court record. Also heard on bail application no. 1114 of 2020.

Applicant-appellant Ankush has been convicted under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order without proper appraisal of evidence and has convicted the appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

List after ten days. (N.S. Dhanik, J.) 06.5.2020 Prabedh

Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aamir Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate with Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA for the State.

This is an appeal against conviction, where the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only).

This is a belated appeal. The delay is of 47 days in filing the appeal, however, it is accompanied with a delay condonation application.

The main reason assigned for the delay is that the appellant could not move a proper appeal within time due to present COVID-19 pandemic.

Learned Government Advocate has very fairly stated that he has no objection if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA, for the State. Urgency application (IA 4709/2020) is allowed.

Let the affidavit of the pairiokar be filed and the court fee be deposited within three days of the opening of the lockdown. Exemption application (CRMA 1111/2020) stands disposed of accordingly.

Heard on the bail application (CRMA 954/2020).

Learned Counsel for the applicants would contend that the maximum sentence awarded to appellants is to undergo imprisonment for five years; appellant no. 2 is seriously ill and on account of prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, there is possibility of the appellants contracting the said disease; appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty and they are in jail since 5.3.2020.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Karan Anand, learned Counsel for the complainant.

Time extension application has been moved on behalf of the accused.

From the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2020, a short term bail for a period of three months commencing from the date of his actual release was granted to the accused by this Court in connection with Crime No.387 of 2019, u/s 420, 406, 504, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 4/5 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, Registered at P.S. Kotwal, District Dehradun.

From the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2020, it is clear that three months time has been completed, but the accused did not file any time extension application before the expiry of three months, hence the accused is directed to surrender himself before the Magistrate on 11.05.2020 at 10:30AM.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State. This matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2020 Jitendra

The applicants Mohd. Shfique and Nadeem, who are in custody, in connection with FIR No. 43 of 2020, under Sections3/5/11(1) of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar have sought their release on bail.

As per the prosecution, on 07.03.2020, 80 Kg. beef was recovered from the custody of the applicants. Applicants Mohd. Shfique and Nadeem were arrested at the spot.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the FIR is delayed; there is no public witness and no FSL report. It is argued that applicants have no criminal history.

Learned State Counsel also admits that there is no criminal history of the applicants.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State. This matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

The applicant Pawan, who is in custody, in connection with Case Crime No. 249 of 2019, under Section 380, 411, 34 of IPC, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail.

It is argued that co-accused Amit @ Romi has been granted bail, who has a similar role.

Learned counsel for the State would admit that the co-accused, whose role is similar, has been granted bail.

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail.

The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, namely, Pawan, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

This first bail application has been filed for regular bail in connection with the F.I.R. No. 3 of 2020, registered with the Police Station Mukhteshwar, District Nainital for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act, 1985").

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 19.02.2020 by S.O. Kuldeep Singh that while he was on daily routine duty along with other police personals in order to maintain law & order, an information was received that a person was coming with illicit Charas. The informant informed the Circle Officer of the Police. After that, the applicant came there. He was searched in the presence of the Circle Officer. On search, 750 grams Charas was recovered from his jacket.

The exemption application, to exempt the applicant from filing the affidavit, has been filed by the applicant during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown with short term bail application.

The exemption application is not opposed by the State.

The exemption application is allowed with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the applicant.

The regular bail application no. 546 of 2020 is pending before this Court.

The applicant is in custody since 10.02.2020 in connection with the F.I.R. No. 1 of 2020, registered with the Police Station Baijnath, District Bageshwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the I.P.C.

The respondent no. 2 filed counter against the bail application through e-mail during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown with exemption application to exempt the respondent no. 2 from filing affidavit in support of the counter.

The exemption application is accepted with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the respondent no. 2.

The counter of respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

The Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant-applicant against the Judgment & Order dated 22.01.2020, passed by the Special Sessions Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2013 State Vs. Pranay Sati, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the offence punishable under Section 8/20 (b) (ii) (B) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act, 1985").

2. Applicant Neeraj, who is in judicial custody, in Case Crime No. 107 of 2019, under Section 323, 504, 506, 354(D) and 376 IPC and Section 3(a) read with 4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ganganahar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

3. Prosecution story, briefly stated is that the applicant and the victim were in relationship, but when the victim learnt about the bad habits of the applicant, she severed her relationship. But, the applicant started following her, pressurised her and started threatening her that in case, she would not follow the commands of the applicant, he would make her photographs viral. On 16.01.2019, the applicant telephonically called the victim; threatened her. Under the tremendous threat extended by the applicant, when the victim reached at the designated place, the applicant took her in a hotel, there the victim met two more boys, who guarded the room. There in the hotel, the applicant raped the victim; took her photographs and threatened her of dire consequences, if she reveals this incident to anyone. The boys, who were in the hotel with the applicant, started molesting her. Even the applicant made the photographs 2 viral. The FIR of the incident was lodged on 08.03.2019. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.

This first bail application has been filed for regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 270 of 2018, registered with the Police Station Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 504 & 307 of the I.P.C.

On 04.05.2018, the informant lodged an F.I.R. alleging that about two years ago, he came in contact with the present applicant and co-accused Dinesh. They told him that they were in business of sale- purchase of Diamonds through their company "J.J. Company" at Delhi. On instigation, the informant gave money time to time to the accused persons. He gave total Rs. 60,60,000/- to the co-accused persons. They assured to return the money, however, even after two years, his money has not been returned. On 01.03.2018, the informant pressurized the accused persons to return his money, on which, the informant was being called on 03.05.2018 at Ulhera Bagh, where the applicant and co-accused persons abused and threatened him, the present applicant assaulted him through a Balkati and other co-accused persons assaulted with kicks and fists.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.44/2020 was registered at Police Station Khairthal, (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2343/2020] District Alwar, Police District Bhiwadi for offence under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.307/2019 was registered at Police Station New (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:12 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2314/2020] Mandi, Hindauncity, District Karauli for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 382 of I.P.C.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.242/2014 was registered at Police Station Thanagazi Alwar for offence under Sections 457, 380 of I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail. Petitioner is in custody for last one and a half years. Criminal antecedents pointed out against the petitioner are prior to the year 2014.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Counsel for the complainant has not given his detail, hence, could not be connected.

3. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

4. F.I.R. No.343/2019 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 323, 365, 201, 302/34 of I.P.C. (FIR has been lodged for offence under Section 302 of IPC.)

5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that eye witnesses have turned hostile. As per the FSL report, cause of death is inconclusive. There was only a bruise on the person of the prosecutrix.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain (through jitsi meet) Mr. Parth Sharma (through jitsi meet) Mr. Rinesh Gupta (through jitsi meet) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP(CBN) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners through Jitsi Meet.

1. Due to outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19), the lawyers are not appearing in the Court.

2. Heard Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, through whatsapp video calling as well as learned Public Prosecutor, who is present in the Court.

3. Despite video whatsapp calling, Mr. Ishwar Lal Jain, learned counsel for the complainant has failed to respond.

4. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.61/2018 Registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 376-D & 506 of IPC.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter and the petitioners are the real brothers of the husband of the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that one month prior to lodging of the present FIR, the (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:06 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2033/2020] prosecutrix also lodged the FIR No.0031/2018 on 15.01.2018 at Police Station Tapukara, District Alwar, in which, the petitioners were also made accused under Sections 143, 341 & 323 of IPC, in which, charge-sheet has been filed only against the husband of the prosecutrix and not against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that when the Investigating Agency submitted the negative final report against the accused-petitioners in the earlier FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, the present FIR has been lodged against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that according to the FSL report dated 03.12.2019, semen could not be detected on the clothes and vaginal swab of the victim. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in custody since February, 2018.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. For Complainant : Mr. Brahm Singh Gurjar. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

3. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

4. F.I.R. No.355/2019 was registered at Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 302, 436, 34, 120-B of I.P.C.

2. Petitioners has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.139/2019 was registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 3, 4 & 8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner is in custody since September, 2019. There was neither any marks on the body of the petitioner, nor any material things are (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:01 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1474/2020] recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners. Conclusion of trial will take time.

1. Bundu Khan S/o Shri Abdul Gani R/o Meer Colony Kekri Road Near Idhgah Malpura Thana Dist. Tonk At Present Tenant House No 24 Chmnawadi Sanjay Nagar Jhotwara Jaipur (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

2. Mohammad Kalim S/o Shri Mohammad Aladdin Khan R/o Bada Mohalla Lalsot Dist.

For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. F.I.R. No.1055/2019 was registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 343, 366, 376 of I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay of lodging in FIR. As per the medical report, prosecutrix is aged 20 years. There are no marks of injury on her person and private parts.