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.

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, he is behind the bars since 30.09.2018, charge-sheet has already been filed on 05.12.2018, co-accused Kana @ Vijay has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court on 21.11.2019, case of present accused petitioner is not different from that of co- accused Kana. Till date evidence of only nine witnesses have been (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:56 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-18079/2019] recorded while prosecution has listed thirty witnesses, hence completion of trial will take time. It has also been submitted that only one eye witness, PW.5, Ajay has been named in the case by the prosecution, whose statement has been recorded and his evidence is not reliable against the present accused petitioner.

1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 663/2019 registered with Police Station Nadbai (Bharatpur), for the offence/s punishable under Section/s 377, 429 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. It has been submitted that material prosecution witnesses in this case have turned hostile during trial, copies of statements of those witnesses have been filed and it has been contended that the main witnesses PW.1 Jadveer, PW.4 Satish and other material witnesses have turned hostile, they have not supported the prosecution version, hence the accused petitioner may be granted bail.

Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Adv. for the complainant. (on Video Conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant.

This Court finds that D.B. Criminal Appeal is pending against the judgment dated 19.12.2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application for suspension of sentence of the appellant is required to be heard by the appropriate Bench.

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is an order dated 09.04.2018 issued by the Registrar General whereby it has been directed that if an appeal is pending before the Division Bench and the accused who has awarded lesser sentence, then the appeal before the Single Bench is required to be tagged with the D.B. Criminal Appeal and the same is required to be listed before the Division Bench. (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:27 PM)

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.300/2019 was registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur Metropolitan for offence under Sections 323, 341, 504, 427, 302, 34 of I.P.C.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay of seven days in lodging of FIR. Co-accused has been enlarged on bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 88/2019 registered at Police Station G.R.P. Sawai Madhopur for offence under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the accused- petitioner that no recovery has been made from the possession of the present accused-petitioner. The alleged recovery has been made from other co-accused persons. There is no cogent evidence against the petitioner except the information of co-accused. Charge-sheet has been filed on 17.01.2020. Trial of the case will (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:48 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15939/2019] consume time. The petitioner is behind Bars since 31.10.2019.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/05/2020 This Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application has been filed by the applicant-appellant alongwith the criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant appellant was on bail during trial. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has been convicted under Section 363 IPC with simple imprisonment of 4 years. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted on other charges levelled against him under Sections 366, 376 (2) (i) 2(n) IPC & Section 5 (L), 6 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the appellant (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:32 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLASOSA-335/2020] submitted that the appellant was arrested on 27.03.2019 and as such appellant has remained behind the bars for more than 13 months.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14(A) (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in connection with FIR No.98/2019 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in custody since 02.05.2019.

Learned counsel submitted that police after investigation has filed challan. Counsel further submitted that the allegation against the appellants is in respect of using fire arm but (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:25 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLAS-2822/2019] the medical report which has been prepared shows that the injury suffered by the injured was simple in nature and caused by the blunt weapon.

This Court further finds that on 17th April, 2020, this Court had also made efforts to contact to the lawyer but he did not respond.

Accordingly, this Court is left with no other option except to adjourn this case.

This Court also finds that if learned counsel has moved an application for listing of the bail application, he is expected to be available on either mode of communication with him.

Appearance:

Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person The Court: Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person. None appears for the State. The matter is fixed for hearing on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am. The petitioner, who appears in person, is requested to serve a copy of this order to the Government Pleader.

Ld. Government Pleader is requested to appear in this matter on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) R.Bhar

(Through Video Conference) Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person) ...plaintiff no.1 Mr. Megnath Datta, Adv.

...for added defendant no.3 The Court : The plaintiff no.1 appears in person on video conferencing. The added defendant no.3 is represented by Mr. Megnath Datta, Advocate via video conferencing.

It is the allegation of the appearing plaintiff that the principal property involved in this partition and administration suit is under serious threat and trespassers are seeking to enter upon the same. Such position is denied on behalf of the appearing defendant. 2

To the mind of this Court, the Bank is only to perform a ministerial task subject to directions in the application. To the further mind of this Court, it would be appropriate that the Intending Purchaser who also stands to be affected qua its liquidify position arising out of the present crisis be given the opportunity to ventilate views before the Hon'ble Court as early as possible.

On the other hand, the present crisis also affects the functioning of the Free School which is claimed to be surviving on the interest earned out of the said Fixed Deposits paid by the Intending Purchaser, as well as the ability of the Trustees to quickly find a new purchaser. Therefore, having regard to the interests of all under the present conditions of a pandemic as well as the balance of convenience, it is directed for the present that the Intending Purchaser shall not insist on the Refund of the Fixed Deposits/Consideration Money till normalcy returns. The Intending Purchaser shall, on the return of normalcy, write to the Learned Receiver invoking the Refund. On receipt of such 4 communication the Learned Receiver shall take apropo steps, including seeking a time limit from the appropriate Court.

That another co-owner namely Soma Ghosh resides in the 1st floor South East corner of the said premises. It is come off from the said suit premises that there have three tenants residing since long. One namely Prabir Paul (55) S/o- Late Ajay Paul resides in Ground floor North-West side of the premises. Tenant Krishna Dhar (73) W/o- Late Debabrata Dhar residing south portion of the said premises and Shambhu Das & his brother Alok Das are residing at the front portion 2nd floor of the said building as tenants since long.

In course of present enquiry at the scheduled property i.e. 13, Kaliprosad Chakraborty Street, Kol-03 nothing unusual was found in respect of possessions, occupied by the co-owners and the tenants.

(Through Video Conference) Appearance:

Ms. Banashree Neogi (in person).

Mr. Meghnad Dutta , Adv.

Mr. Arindam Paul , Adv.

... for the added defendant no.3 Mr. D. K. Chandra, Adv.

... for defendant nos.3(i) & 3(ii). The Court: It appears that by the order dated April 16, 2020, the parties were directed to file their respective affidavit in the application filed by the plaintiffs. The said order also records that in view of the subsisting interim order, the petitioners' interest in respect of the suit property is already protected. There was no direction that the application would be appearing before this Court today. This is also not disputed by the parties.

2

The application has been filed on the ground of urgency that the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court cannot be taken up immediately.

In view of the present situation, the time to comply with the order passed by the Trial Court is extended till June 30, 2020. However, this order will not be a charter for the applicant to continue manufacturing its products. Indeed, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that no manufacturing activity is being undertaken in the present situation.

G. A. 804 of 2020 is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties thereto.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. No.3391 of 2017 and in Criminal M.A. No.13845 of 2017, by which the High Court affirmed (i) the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by Mahila Court in proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 12 of the DV Act1 and (ii) 1 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.417-418 OF 2020 @ SLP (CRL) NOS.4044-4045 OF 2019 NEELAM GUPTA VS. MAHIPAL SHARAN GUPTA AND ANOTHER 2 the order dated 15.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2016.

1. These Writ Petitions broadly fall in following three categories:-

A] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2018 filed by four petitioners, prays for appropriate directions that after the promulgation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (“2010 Rules”, for short), all appointments ought to be in conformity with 2010 Rules and allocation of seniority must be in accordance with the Cyclic Order provided in Schedule VII to 2010 Rules. In terms of 2010 Rules, posts in the cadre of District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service in State of Rajasthan were required to be filled up in accordance with quota of 50% for Promotees, 25% for Direct Recruits and 25% by way of Limited Competitive Examination Writ Petition (Civil) No.936 of 2018 etc etc. Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Hon. High Court for Judicature of Rajasthan and Anr.

1. The matters have been referred in view of conflicting decisions in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and Ors. 1, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2, T. Velayudhan Achari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 3, and Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors. 4. The question relates to the scope of the legislative field covered by Entry 45 of List I viz. ‘Banking’ and Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, consequentially power of the Parliament to legislate. The moot question is the applicability of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to the co­operative banks.

1. This contempt petition has been filed by the original plaintiff (in CS(OS) No. 2041/2013 filed in High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1), under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 2 and read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 3 in reference to the order dated 22.2.2019 passed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos. 5147/2019 Signature Not Verified and 5350/2019, which reads thus: ­ Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:17 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the 1971 Act” 3 For short, “the 1975 Rules” 2 “We are not inclined to interfere with the Special Leave Petition.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 29.8.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 1 in Second Appeal No. 771/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2015 passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34/2011 came to be affirmed, as a result of which the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 (original plaintiffs) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.05.06 16:03:13 IST Reason:

1 For short, “the High Court” 2 For short, “the first appellate Court” 2 Ratnagiri3 being RCS No. 25/2005 for permanent injunction against the appellant and respondent No. 20 (State of Maharashtra), restraining them from starting the Solid Waste Disposal Project4 at the suit property, has been decreed. In other words, the trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court allowed (decreed) the same, which decision has been upheld by the High Court in the Second Appeal.

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Jangsher Ali, (2) Omar Ali, (3) Kayum Ali, (4) Sobur Uddin and (5) Badsha Miya, seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 207/2020 registered under Sections 143/147/148/447/325/302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 369(K)/2020.

As per the FIR of the case, the present accused petitioners along with 11 (eleven) named accused persons and 10 (ten) to 15(fifteen) others illegally entered the land that belongs to the father of the informant around 08:00 in the morning on 01.03.2020 while they were planting rice paddy saplings armed with dao, stick etc. and attacked his family members namely, Ainul Hoque, Saniara Khatun, Jahiruddin, Rupchand Ali, Sukur Ali, Hanif Ali and killed his uncle Ainal Hoque.

1. None entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Further service report on the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is yet to be received by the Registry.

Accordingly, list after three weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

By this application under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioner namely, Pranab Kr. Sharma is seeking pre arrest bail apprehending his arrest in All Women Police Station Case No. 57/2020 registered under Sections 376/313/498(A) of the IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 4553/2020.

The informant on 29.03.2020 lodged a written ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station alleging that the petitioner raped her prior to her marriage with him.

Page No.# 2/3 On 14.05.2018 the petitioner married the informant secretly at Kolkata Kalighat Temple and Court marriage between them took place at Guwahati on 18.12.2018 before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup Metro, Guwahati. It is also alleged by the informant that because of their wedlock though she was pregnant, the petitioner forcefully aborted her. It is stated by the informant that she is serving in the office of the Assam Real Estate and Infrastructure Developer's Association (AREIDA) at Guwahati since 2015 and that the petitioner is the lone Director of the said Office and that at present she is residing in the house of the petitioner at New Guwahati. The informant also stated that only after her marriage with the petitioner she could come to know that she is his fourth wife. The informant alleged that the petitioner is physically and mentally torturing her, has his eyes on the money of her mother and her family members and that he is harassing her in all counts of her life and may even through her from the house at New Guwahati wherein she is residing now and from her job at AREIDA.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn the show cause notice dated 15.09.2014, the demolition order dated 29.04.2015, the order of the ATMCD dated 10.08.2016 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.08.2018.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing No. 8770/14B, Shidi Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi (measuring 85 sq. yards) was purchased by Late Sh.Prem Nath Shrama, husband of the petitioner on 20.09.1982. Prior to the said property, he had also purchased the adjacent property bearing No. 8771/14 B (measuring 160 sq. yards) on 28.10.1972. Sh. Prem Nath Sharma died on 11.05.1996. Pursuant to a Will, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the two properties.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J. (JUDGMENT)

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking appropriate order for setting aside the sealing order dated 5.1.2019 and a direction to deseal the premises being Khasra No.257, Village Siraspur, Delhi.

2. The case of the petitioner is that since 1988 the petitioners have been enjoying the property and spending huge amounts on the same. In 2011 a threat was extended to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law. The petitioner thereafter filed three separate Writ Petitions which were disposed of by this court on 22.2.2011 directing the petitioners to file appropriate petition for declaration of their rights with respect to the land in their possession. The respondent/Gaon Sabha were permitted to file W.P.(C) 1355/2019 Page 1 of 7 ejectment proceedings against the petitioner and till disposal of the ejectment proceedings protection was given to the petitioner.

2. Summons in the present suit were issued on 24th October 2014 and vide order dated 3rd April 2018, following issues weresettled: -

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a money decree against the defendant, if so for what amount? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP iii. Relief.

3. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that he is a duly registered Class- I contractor, under the name Bharat Construction Company, a CS(COMM) 719/2017 Page 1 of 18 proprietorship firm with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The plaintiff was awarded construction work of outfall drain from A-74, Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Area to DTC Nallah at Loha Mandi Naraina in Karol Bagh Zone vide work order No. EE-Project Karol Bagh/SYS/2011- 2012/14 dated 10th February 2012. The contractual amount of the work was Rs. 4,05,26,960 and the time for completion was of 6 months.

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The petition is being filed by the petitioner and challenge is being made to the order dated 04.03.2020, whereby the petitioner is directed to retire on completion of 62 years of age. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Physical Instructor and is equivalent to Teacher as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma, in W.A.No.613/2016. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the Clause F of Regulation 8 of Ministry of Human Resources and Development Department as under :-

"(f) Age of Superannuation :- (i) In order to meet the situation arising out of

shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teacher in Central Education Institution has already 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.7385/2020 (Gopal Prasad Shivhare Vs. Union of India & Others) been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F.No.1- 19/2006-U.II dated 23.03.2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. Letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30-03-2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of vice- Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities).

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

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

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

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

-6-

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

Law laid down Significant Para Nos.

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

2. Heard on the question of admission.

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

For Respondent/University: Shri Samresh Katare, Advocate.

Law laid down Significant Para Nos.

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

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

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

8

W. P. No. 6095/2020

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

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

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

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

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

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

... ... Appellant Versus

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

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

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

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

5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

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

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