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 12:52:40 ::: 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

-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.

Leaders in Victoria and New South Wales refused to make any changes and suggested most rules will be in place until June - even though we've had only four coronavirus deaths in the past week.

1. This is an Application seeking stay of operation of the Order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Central Commission") whereby the State Commission in Petition NO. 54 of 2017 has determined the completed capital cost of GVK's 540 MW power project located in Punjab as under:

S.No. Claimed by Recomm- Approved GVK ended by by the Ld. Joint PSERC* Auditor 1. Land 123.77 123.77 96.75 2. Preliminary Expenses 0.25 0.25 3. Boiler Turbine Generator 1050.22 1050.17 1050.17 Package including Engineering, Erection, Civil Works, Taxes and 4. Balance of Plant including 927.40 895.06 783.57 Engineering, Erection, Civil Works, Taxes and 5. Duties. Spares for BTG Package. 0.11 0.11 6. Non-EPC. 337.31 285.56 204.60 7. Start-Up Expenses 31.68 15.00 0 7. Power and Water for 32.57 32.57 32.10 Construction. 8. Consultancy and 54.13 11.03 Engineering charges 9. Pre-operative Expenses 186.55 126.56 74.04 10. Insurance 16.56 16.56 16.56 11. Capital Cost excluding 2760.55 - 2269.18 IDC & Financing Charges Page 2 of 98 IA NO. 136 OF 2020 IN APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2020 12. Interest During 1474.84 1455.77 777.50 Construction (IDC) 13. Financing Charges 31.99 31.99 11.69 14. Total Capital Cost 4267.38 4103.83 3058.37

1. The Appellant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) has come up with the present appeal challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Central Commission) in Petition No. 298/MP/2018 which had been instituted by the Respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) seeking declaration as to right to recover a sum aggregating Rs.111,74,47,434 Crores towards principal and delayed payment surcharge at the rate of 1.5% per month as on 31.08.2019 along with further interest till payment. It appears that the Appellant had resisted the claim by raising the issue of limitation pleading that the Appeal No. 20 of 2020 Page 2 of 5 petition of DVC could not be entertained, it being time barred.

Fresh evidence that Russian footballers were helped to cheat during their nation's state-sponsored doping scandal will arrive at FIFA within weeks.

2. The petitioners were appointed as Associate professors in the Department of Surgery of the 2nd respondent. They have completed their Masters degree in their respective subjects and were recruited by the 2nd respondent in the year 2005. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a notification on 10.07.2008 calling for applications for appointment of Associate Professors. The educational qualification for the said post as per notification are as under :

"5. EDUCATION QUALIFICATION :- For the post of Associate Professor :-

1.He/She must possess requisite recognized :4: Post graduate qualification in the respective subject.

2. Respondents No.1 to 4 are the State and the statutory authorities who are empowered to and authorized to sanction layouts including private layouts and vested with the obligation to ensure that the said layouts are formed and administered in accordance with the WP Nos.67289-291 OF 2010 5 applicable laws including the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('KTCP Act' for short), as also Karnataka Urban Development Act.

3. The concerned plots and/or the layout fall within the purview and jurisdiction of Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority ('HDUDA' for short). The said Authority coming within the purview of KTCP Act.

2. Petitioner claims to be appointed as a Lecturer in Urdu in the 8th respondent Institution viz., Nehru Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College, Ghantikeri, on fulltime basis and has been working therein for nearly ten years. The petitioner claims to have passed M.A. in Urdu and has worked as Guest Lecturer for 3 years in P.G.Department of Urdu and Persian, Karnataka University, Dharward; 6 years as an Academic Counsellor in MANUU; and 3 years as a Lecturer in Political Science in Anjuman Women's College, Hubli. He claims that he has been working from the year 1998 with 8th respondent, from the year 1998 till 2002 worked as Part-time Lecturer and from 2002 on fulltime basis.

2. One Mr.Ganapati had filed a complaint, which was registered by Gokarna P.S. Crime No.27/2010, upon investigation the Investigating Officer of Kumata P.S. had presented a charge sheet on 25.07.2011. Thereafter, the :4: investigation was continued and an additional charge sheet was filed on 28.07.2012 for the aforesaid offences.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 12, who stood trial before JMFC Court had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge in the said proceedings. The application was opposed by the prosecution. The JMFC after hearing both parties by order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the application filed by the accused.

2. The case of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet is that every year Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) conducts entrance exam for Post Graduation studies in different disciplines of medical and dental sciences, which examination is held at different centres, one such centre in the year 2011 was designated to be that of Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences (VIMS).

CRL.P. No.102200 OF 2019 :4:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 Dr.Vinaya Prasanna was serving in the teaching line in VIMS had allegedly conspired with others to adopt malpractices to help certain candidates to get better results. On the date of examination, i.e. 30.01.2011 accused No.1 illegally opened the question paper in his custody, took photographs of the question paper using his digital camera, sent the digital camera through accused No.1 to accused No.17, accused No.27 who was allegedly a computer operator took a print out of the question paper from the digital camera by connecting it to the computer present in the residence of accused No.17. On that basis, accused Nos.6 to 15 prepared answers to the questions, entered the said answers in the same computer and copy chits in the form of print outs were prepared in respect of the question paper. Accused No.7, in turn, CRL.P. No.102200 OF 2019 :5: handed the chits back to accused No.1, who circulated them to selected students viz., accused Nos.16 to 26, who copied the answers from the chits and managed to get high rank in the examination.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with a permission to pursue Crl. P. No.2208/2020.

Permission is granted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE snc*

2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 437 of Cr.P.C seeking enlargement of bail before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala. It is further submitted that necessary report was made to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on 07.04.2020 as well as on 13.04.2020 to ensure that the petition be taken up on priority in light of urgency explained and also as it involved liberty of the petitioner and as he had made out a case for being enlarged on bail in the petition filed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

3. It is further submitted that on both occasions, i.e. 07.04.2020 and 13.04.2020, learned District Judge has refused to order that the bail petition be taken up for 3 consideration stating that it is not a case of extreme urgency.

2. The petitioner is seeking bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.47/2020 of Harihara Town Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 148, 307, 324 of IPC.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner/ accused No.1 and the complainant are running a liquor shop in the name and style as "Swapna Bar and Restaurant' in Harihara for a period of six years. The complainant asked the petitioner to submit the accounts pertaining to the business of the said bar and restaurant. In this background, the petitioner/accused No.1 along with his followers, went to the house of the complainant on 21.03.2020 at about 8.45 p.m. and picked up quarrel with him and abused him in filthy language and assaulted with 3 beer bottle on his face and head and caused bleeding injury.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the first informant/Police Officer attached to the respondent-police station along with other officials were on patrolling duty near a ware house situated close to Pratibha School at about 3.00 a.m., on 13.03.2020, they found these petitioners along with four others preparing to commit decoity. The petitioners were apprehended and a case was registered in Crime No.18/2020 of Roza police station for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and 3 they are not involved in any such offence much less the one now alleged against them. He submits that the petitioners are eking out their livelihood by driving the auto and also by doing coolie work. He submits that the petitioners are arrested on 13.03.2020 and since then they are in judicial custody and by imposing any conditions, they may be enlarged on bail.

2. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.76/2020 of Channapattana Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 324, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2020, while the police constable attached to Maddur police station was on duty at Nidaghatta Check Post, one white colour Innova car came to the checkpost and when the first informant and others started inspecting the vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle started hurling abusive words, snatched the lathi from the first informant and assaulted him with the said lathi on his hands and threatened to run over the vehicle and thereafter went towards Mysore. 3

2. The petitioner is seeking bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.64/2020 of Savanur Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Sections 269, 188, 149, 143, 353, 323 of IPC, pending on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Savanur in PC No.11/2020.

3. The complainant is the Tahsildar, Savanur. It is alleged that when the complainant along with his staff were on rounds within the Savanur Town to confirm and verify the compliance of Government Order of prohibition of public assembly in view of pandemic wreaking havoc, they received an information that some people have 3 gathered to offer Friday prayer at Jamma Masjid situated at Shukravarapete. The complainant along with the PSI and staff went to the spot and enquired the people gathered there and reminded them of the Government Order of prohibition of more than five members assembling at a place. It is alleged that the people gathered there started pushing and obstructing them from discharging their duty.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.22/2019 of Marikuppam Police Station. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against five accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 of IPC.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.06.2018 there was a quarrel between the victim namely Rahul and one Karthik, who is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. In the said quarrel, the said Karthik suffered bleeding injuries and in this regard, a case was registered in Marikuppam police station against Rahul and 3 his friends. Since then, there was enmity between Rahul and Karthik. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 14.09.2019 at about 9.45 p.m., Karthik along with other accused persons having formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted Rahul with deadly weapons and caused bleeding injuries to him.

This petition is heard through video conference.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.69/2020 of Bandepalya P.S., (Electronic City Sub Division) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(O), 420, 506 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the lockdown, he approached the Sessions Court by filing a petition through e-mail. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken up the matter on the ground that extreme urgency is not made out. Hence, the learned counsel seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.03.2020. It cannot be said that there is no urgency made 3 out. Hence, the jurisdictional Sessions Court is directed to take up the petition and dispose of the petition in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

3. The Plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.22/2008 contending that:

RFA No.4150 OF 2013 -3- 3.1. The Plaintiff was a Class I Contractor registered with the Government of Karnataka, and he had maintained a good and immaculate record. 3.2. The Suit was filed regarding illegal recovery that the 1st Defendant has made from the Plaintiff's bills in respect of the work of Karwar Harbour Project i.e., "Construction of Southern Break Waters" near Karwar Head".

3.3. Government of Karnataka on 20.12.1990 through the Executive Engineer (Ports Division), Karwar invited applications for pre-qualification from eligible Class I Contractors for the work of construction of Break Waters (Rubble Mound Type) at Karwar Port for the work detailed therein.

MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA for the PETITIONER(s) No. for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 08/05/2020 IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. Present application is preferred by the convict to release him on temporary bail for a period of 60 days on the grounds mentioned in the application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I-11209016200088 of 2020 with Himmatnagar A -Division Police Station.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including the condition with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to seek remand of the petitioners; subject to the petitioner's right to oppose it.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 65(f) and 64(a) of the Prohibition Act for which FIR came to be registered at Prohibition C.R. No.11205035200180 of 2020 with Nakhtrana Police Station, Kutch-Bhuj.

3. Considering the quantity of contraband involved in the offence, as also the number of antecedents and the age of the accused and considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I-193 of 2019 with Dindoli Police Station, Dist: Surat.

3. Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

4. Hence, this application is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.I-193 of 2019 with Dindoli Police Station, Dist: Surat on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 116 and 81 of the Prohibition Act which FIR came to be registered at FIR Part-C C.R. No.11191038200118 of 2020 with Vatva Police Station.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including the condition with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to seek remand of the petitioner; subject to the petitioner's right to oppose it.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(A), 65(E) and 116(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for which FIR came to be registered at Prohibition C.R. No.I-11207079200033 of 2019 with Halol Rural Police Station, Panchmahal.

3. Considering the fact the muddamal was recovered from the house of father of the applicant in absence of conscious possession with the petitioner and considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. It is very much clear from the FIR that accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.11,000/- from the deceased on account of birth of a child to the wife of the deceased and upon his reluctance to pay the amount demanded and his willingness to pay Rs.5,000/-, accused insisted for the full payment; they picked up the quarrel with the deceased and one of the accused Renuka Kunvar allegedly thrashed the head of the deceased against the wall resulting into brain hemorrhage to which the deceased eventually succumbed and died after hospitalization of seven days. The material has been collected and the evidence has been recorded and it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused persons have been identified by the auto-rickshaw driver in his statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code in whose auto- rickshw the accused persons commuted to the place of the deceased and thus the argument to the contrary that the accused persons remained unidentified in absence of TI parade has no substance.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I -25 of 2019 with Mehlav Police Station, District Anand.

3. On consideration of the rival submissions, the statement of the victim prima facie appears to be very curious in accompanying the unknown persons; she does not seem to be revealing the full and correct facts in her statement and thus considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Baghel for the applicant submits that present application is filed after the charge-sheet. He submits that there is no recovery or discovery from the present applicant. He further submits that the mobile, which is alleged to have been noted in the alleged incident is not recovered from any of the accused persons. He also submits that since the charge-sheet is filed, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence of prosecution and the applicant is not likely to flee from the justice. He also submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He therefore, urges that the applicant may be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Page 1 of 4

2. Learned advocate Mr. Karia for the applicant submits that the applicant is arrested on the basis of statement of co-accused. Learned Advocate further submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He further submits that the applicant has two past criminal antecedents.

4. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:29:40 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6081/2020 ORDER not press for further reasoned order.