1. In this original application, registered suo motu, the issue under consideration relates to the large-scale encroachment on the forest land across the country.

2. The Tribunal by the order dated 19.04.2024 had required the States/Union Territories(UTs) to furnish the detailed information in the format provided in that order and also to supply a copy thereof to Counsel for the Respondent No.1, MoEF&CC, who was directed to compile the information in a separate table which was also provided in that order.

3. The MoEF&CC has filed the interim affidavit dated 30.07.2024 disclosing that the reply was received by the MoEF&CC by 23 States/UTs out of which, 16 States/UTs had provided the data in the prescribed format.

1. In this original application, one of the Alumni of Respondent No. 2, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) has made an allegation of large-scale felling of trees within the campus without any permission by the competent authority. The allegation is that the trees of Shagaun, Sandalwood, Mango, etc. have been cut.

2. The Tribunal on 31.07.2024 had issued notice to the respondents and had also formed a two-member Joint Committee with a direction to the Committee to visit the site and ascertain the correct position and submit the report.

3. The Joint Committee has submitted the report dated 29.10.2024 disclosing that the Divisional Forest Officer, Varanasi in the year 2022- 23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (till now) had granted permission to cut 135 trees in the campus. But as against this, Respondent No. 2 had cut 149 trees, and university could not clarify the position in respect of 14 trees. The Joint Committee had found that 6 Mango, 3 Gold Mohar, 1 Kathal and 2 Mahua trees were illegally cut on the spot for which the Forest Department of Varanasi has registered the Forest Offence No. 43/2024- 25 dated 23.10.2024. The report of the Joint Committee further discloses that Committee constituted by the Forest Department, Varanasi had found that total 161 trees were cut in the campus and permission only for 135 trees was granted, therefore, 26 trees were cut by the university administration without the permission of the Forest Department for which the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi had sent the letter no. 1053/2-43 dated 15.10.2024 to the Deputy Director, Forest (Central), Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The report further reflects that 7 sandalwood trees have been cut illegally without any permission.

1. Though the Respondents No. 5 to 11 are served and affidavit of service has been filed but no one has entered the appearance on their behalf, nor any reply has been received from them.

2. The fresh report of the Joint Committee has been filed by the UPPCB along with the reply dated 08.11.2024.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks one week time to examine the report and file objection, if required.

4. It has also been pointed out that OA No. 269/2024 involving the same issue against the same project proponent is pending.

5. List alongwith OA No. 269/2024 on 21.11.2024.

Prakash Shrivastava, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM November 11, 2024 Original Application No. 121/2024 dv..

1.1 We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Hearing concluded. Order reserved. The order will be uploaded on the website, after due consideration, on or before 19.02.2021.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP S.K. Singh, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM February 15, 2021 Original Application No. 43/2020(EZ) with connected matters DV

1. This original application is registered suo motu on the basis of the news item titled "दे हरादन ू : उ राखंड के 104 वग कलोमीटर जंगल पर क ज़ा... सैकड़ो पेड़ काटे , वन वभाग क भू मका सवालो म" appearing in 'Amar Ujala' dated 22.08.2024.

2. The news item relates to the encroachment of forests in Uttarakhand. As per the article, a total of 104.54 square kilometres of forest in 39 forest divisions of the State is occupied by encroachers. The news item questions the inaction by the Forest Department as the encroachment took place gradually, yet no action has been taken by the authorities. The article mentions that 11 thousand hectares of forest land in the State were encroached and the Forest Department did not even know about it and upon gaining knowledge, only 11.5 hectares of forest land were freed from encroachment. Furthermore, the Uttarakhand Forest Statistics Book published in 2017-2018 reported that 9,506.2249 hectares of forest land were encroached upon. However, under the CM's instructions, a recent campaign initiated by the Forest Department last year reported an increased figure of 11,814.47 hectares of encroached forest land. This raises questions about whether the increase occurred over the past three years or if it reflects earlier encroachments that were previously unreported.

1. After having heard the argument of learned counsel for applicant for half an hour, he could not convince us as to how Relief (A) sought in the present Original Application regarding quashing of the purported Forest Clearance dated 29.09.2016, which is annexed at page nos.47 to 49 of the paper book and purported Forest Clearance dated 27.03.2017, which is annexed at page nos.50 to 53 of the paper book, which are issued in favours of M/s Shri Mandar Gadkari and M/s. Salim Khan and others respectively, under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 for regularization of constructed bungalows, servant quarters, poultry, garage, swimming pool with Jacuzzi, road and laying of underground water pipeline and electricity cable along the road and other allied purposes in Raigad District of Maharashtra, subject to the conditions contained therein, fall in our jurisdiction because the said Act i.e. Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 does not fall in the Schedule- I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

11/11/2024 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 0006/2024, registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-D IPC and sections 5(l)6 and 11/12 of POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution, the petitioner on the date of alleged incident forcibly took the victim Mst.'R' away from the company of her mother and took her to Rawatsar, Nyolkhi, Sonadi etc. Thereafter, the victim Mst.'R' was subjected to forcible sexual assault-rape by the present petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal the statements of the victim Mst.'R' would indicate that at the time when she was being forcibly taken away [2024:RJ-JD:45324] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8220/2024] from the company of her mother, neither she nor her mother shouted for any help. Further, while she was forced to travel with the petitioner in public transportation to various places, she despite having ample opportunities did not shout for any help or inform anyone about the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the behaviour of the victim Mst.'R' is highly unnatural and indicates that she has levelled false allegations against the petitioner only with a view to falsely rope him in a criminal case.

Order 12/11/2024 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.21/2024 registered at Police Station Gangasheher, Dist. Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 354, 307 and 143 of IPC.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the instant bail application at this stage on behalf of the petitioner No.1- Mohammed Imran Rehmani S/o Mohammed [2024:RJ-JD:45679] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10861/2024] Ayub Rehmani but, he seeks leave of the Court to file a fresh bail application after the statements of the injured- Ajeez are recorded.

[2024:RJ-JD:45705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13676/2024 Ganpat Singh S/o Misri Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Narsingo Ki Dhani, P.s. Khuhari, Dist. Jaisalmer. Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Jaisalmer)

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

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Order 12/11/2024 These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.376/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 8/25, 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

[2024:RJ-JD:45546] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11930/2023] Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during naakabandi, on 04.11.2020, a team of Police Station Ratangarh intercepted one Maruti car having registration No.DL- 09-CB-6368. Upon a search being made, the contraband (15,600 tablets of tramadol) was recovered in one plastic bag. They were arrested on the spot.

[2024:RJ-JD:45604] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11138/2024 Gurvindra Singh @ Gindi S/o Dilawar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kamalewala, Teh. And Dist. Firozpur, Punjab (Lodged In Sub Jail Anupgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, PP JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Order 12/11/2024 These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.376/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 8/25, 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

[2024:RJ-JD:45546] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11930/2023] Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during naakabandi, on 04.11.2020, a team of Police Station Ratangarh intercepted one Maruti car having registration No.DL- 09-CB-6368. Upon a search being made, the contraband (15,600 tablets of tramadol) was recovered in one plastic bag. They were arrested on the spot.

Judgment 11/11/2024 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Session Case No.241/2020 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 307, 326, 324 & 448 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act and sentenced him as under :

Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 307 10 years SI Rs.25,000/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 2 months Addl. SI Sec. 326 7 years SI Rs.5,000/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 1 month Addl. SI Sec. 324 2 years SI Rs.500/- & in default of payment, IPC undergo 7 days Addl. SI Sec 448 IPC 1 year SI -- Sec. 4/25 of 3 years SI Rs.2,000/- & in default of payment, Arms Act undergo 15 days Addl. SI [2024:RJ-JD:45484] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-422/2024]

2. All the petitioners are accused in FIR No.40/2011 registered with Police Station Kotawali in the District of Jaisalmer for Offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act).

3. By the impugned order dated 13.09.2023, the charges were ordered to be framed for offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled [2024:RJ-JD:44266] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-2169/2023] Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989").

4. The prosecution case is that on 31.01.2011, respondent No.2 along with other officials had gone to identify the area of encroachment on the public land made by Achal Singh, petitioner No.1. When the informant was measuring the site, all the petitioners objected and allegedly committed abuses like Bhangi, Neech, Bhikhari, Mangani to the informant and others and they committed assault as well.

[2024:RJ-JD:45724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 13173/2024 Sudhir Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Khairpur, Police Station Bahavwala, District Fazila, Punjab.

(At Present Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh)

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

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R. Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Order 11/11/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case 2. Concerned Police Station Sojat Road 3. District Pali 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 307/34 of of the NDPS Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act of the 5. Offences added, if any --

Order 12/11/2024

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.40/2024, registered at Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara, for offences under Sections 302/34, 201 & 120-B of IPC; Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, co-accused Ashish was having love affair with the deceased- Kokila. The co-accused Ashish on turning relations sour with the deceased Kokila hatched a criminal conspiracy with the present petitioner to kill her. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the petitioner and co-accused Ashish took the deceased- Kokila to [2024:RJ-JD:45612] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9555/2024] a nearby place on a motorbike which was being driven by the present petitioner. The co-accused Ashish, thereafter, took the deceased- Kokila in a nearby dry river (nala) and cut her throat by a sharp weapon (knife). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a bare perusal of the challan pappers and the statements of the various witnesses recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clearly established that the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. At the time when the deceased- Kokila was killed by the co-accused Ashish, the petitioner was not present at the place of incident. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was having any knowledge about the intentions of the co-accused Ashish to commit the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the only allegation against the present petitioner is of taking the co-accused Ashish and deceased Kokila to a nearby place on motorbike on request being made by them. Learned counsel further submitted that the sharp weapon (knife) and a motorbike allegedly used in the commission of crime have been recovered at the instance of the co-accused Ashish. Learned counsel submitted that there is no incriminating material available on record indicating the involvement of present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime.

1. The sole petitioner is aggrieved by framing of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 coupled with Section 120B of IPC by the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Session Case No.20/2015 (19/2008).

2. The aforesaid Session Case arises out of FIR No.175/2006 registered on 26.06.2006 with ACB Pali/CPS, Jaipur for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution case is that on the relevant date i.e. 19.06.2006, the petitioner was posted as Manager at Jaitaran Kraya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti. Complainant-Babu Lal Gehlot had performed some contractual work of the Samiti and out of the total bill of Rs.3,87,571/-, Rs.2,30,000/- was already paid to him. Rs.1,37,571/- was still due and for release of that [2024:RJ-JD:44388] (2 of 8) [CRLR-1347/2018] pending money, the petitioner was demanding Rs.70,000/- as bribe. After being harassed for several rounds to get the aforesaid amount released, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- as final settlement. This incident took place on 19.06.2006.

[2024:RJ-JD:43970] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2596/2023 Pappu Lal @ Dinesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Semarathi P.s., Chhoti Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1157/2023 Suresh Kumar S/o. Udai Lal Gurjar, aged 35 years, R/o. Semarthali, Police Station Choti Sadari, District Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged in District Jail, Chittorgarh)

[2024:RJ-JD:43970] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2596/2023 Pappu Lal @ Dinesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Semarathi P.s., Chhoti Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1157/2023 Suresh Kumar S/o. Udai Lal Gurjar, aged 35 years, R/o. Semarthali, Police Station Choti Sadari, District Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged in District Jail, Chittorgarh)

[2024:RJ-JD:45696] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13482/2024 Ramesh S/o Shri Jalaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bishnoiyan Ki Dhani, Bhaniya, Tehsil Sojat, P.s. Shivpura, Dist. Pali, Presently Residing At Janta Colony, Rameshwar Nagar, P.S. Basni, Dist. Jodhpur, Raj.

(Confined In Jodhpur Central Jail)

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

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

Order 08/11/2024 Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (WA Act Cases) Bikaner by which the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 304B/302 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent no.2 lodged a FIR against the accused persons including the petitioner for demand of dowry and cruelty for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 304B and 302 IPC. The police after investigation submitted chargesheeted only against the husband and other accused persons were not arrayed as an accused. The investigation against the present petition was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. but later on investigation was completed and a closure report was submitted before the trial court.

Date : 11.11.2024

1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mohammad Tahzeeb, impugning the order dated 27.09.2024 as well as 04.10.2024 whereby 308.14 tons of coal, which is claimed to be the property of the petitioner, has been given in custody of the respondent No. 2 and the prayer for giving zimma of the same to the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the proprietor of Lalpahar Coal Depot, Tinsukia, Assam and operates a lawful business of coal processing and distribution with requisite statutory licenses and authorization including GST registration and NOC from local authorities.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State Respondent. Also heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. The other respondents are not represented, though notices are duly served.

The present petition is filed under section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2012, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No.25(J)/2000, acquitting the accused respondent from the charges under section 304/149 IPC.

Perused the grounds of preferring the appeal against acquittal.

11.11.2024 Herd Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

As Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has entered Page No.# 3/3 appearance on behalf of the State respondent No.1, a copy of the petition along with the documents annexed thereto be furnished to him during the course of the day.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 11/11/2024 Heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (New Section 483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jashim Uddin Laskar, son of Late Jalal Uddin Laskar, resident of Village- Barnagad, P.O. Kalibaribazar, P.S. Algapur, District-Hailakandi, seeking bail in Silchar P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 1935/2023 registered under Sections 379 IPC (Section New 303 BNS) corresponding to G.R. No. 3650/2023, wherein he was arrested on 11.09.2024 and is in custody since then.

11.11.2024 Heard Shri A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant, namely, Jiarul Haque, who has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) praying for granting pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhuragaon PS Case No.78/2024, under Sections 447/376/503/34 of IPC.

Also heard Shri K. K. Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

Page No.# 2/2 Call for the Case Diary, fixing 29.11.2024.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the offences involved are serious in nature a bare reading of the allegations which has been registered in the form of a complaint would show that the same are concocted. He has highlighted the aspect that though the alleged incident is on 04.06.2024, the complaint has been lodged on 27.08.2024.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. R. N. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, for the respondent No.2.

2. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner, namely, Shri Abir Dutta, son of Late Jagat Chandra Dutta, resident of Village/Town- Ward No.7, South Amolapatty, Mohanghat, Near Borah Hyundai, District- Dibrugarh has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in C.I.D. P.S. Case No.11/2024 (C.R. Case No. 4427/204) registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC.

3. The matter relates to alleged illegal claim of land acquisition compensation of land relating to Dag Nos. 8 and 9 under Jhapora Gaon of Dibrugarh Town Protection (DTP) Dyke/Mathauri that was constructed in the year 1954-56, which is Government land and allegedly purchased by father of the petitioner late Jagat Chandra Dutta during his lifetime in the year 1971.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 6; Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI/NHIDCL for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5.

In view of the Judgment of the three-Judges Bench decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and others, reported in [2018] 15 SCC 356, and the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 558/2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would complete his instructions on the issue of the maintainability of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the Judgment and Order under challenge is passed by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a reference under Section 3H[4] of the National Highways Act, 1956.

11-11-2024 Heard Mr. T. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved with the order dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at Calcutta, West Bengal in Case No.CS59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC directing the petitioner for his appearance on 11.07.2024 and the order dated 11.07.2024 of the said Court by which it issued Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner for his appearance in said Case No.CS/59941/24.

3. Petitioner has filed this application under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India stating that as per the Business Loan Agreement dated 25.11.2023, with Loan Application ID No. 107024 the agreement was executed at Chennai with the respondent No.1, whereas, the borrower i.e., the petitioner/lonee is from the District of Karimganj, Assam, therefore, the Court at West Bengal does not have any jurisdiction to initiate any such proceeding on the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, Mintifi Finserve Private Limited under Section 200 CrPC with charge under Sections 406/420 IPC against the petitioner before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th at Calcutta being registered as Case No.CS/59941/24 under Sections 406/420 IPC. According to the petitioner, taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner by the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 15 th at Calcutta, West Bengal on the basis of the complaint of the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and bad in law.

11.11.2024 Mr. A. B. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. P. Gowami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is an application under Section 442/438 of BNSS against the judgment and order date 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2020 affirming the Page No.# 3/3 judgment of the trial court and modifying the sentence whereby the accused was convicted under Section 147/323/325/149 IPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on bail during trial and appeal as such the petitioner may be allowed to remain on previous bail or to go on bail.

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-2 (FTC), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 52(T)/18 convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo with Life Imprisonment u/s 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default the accused shall have to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an FIR on 18.02.2018 by one Ashok Chik (PW2), who is the brother of the deceased Sankar Chik. In the said FIR, the informant did not name anybody as accused and the allegation was that some unknown miscreant had left his younger brother near the Kali Mandir after killing him. On the basis of the FIR, the investigation was done whereafter the charge sheet was submitted. On framing of the charges and denial thereof, the formal trial had begun in which 15 numbers of prosecution witnesses were examined and certain documents were also exhibited including the sketch map. Apart from the statements made before the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the statements of 3 nos. of witnesses were also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the evidence, the appellant - accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he had denied the evidence against him.

Date : 11.11. 2024 Heard Mr. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

It is submitted by Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that charge sheet vide C.S. No. 11/24, dated 31.03.2024 has already been submitted Page No.# 2/2 in connection with Kazigaon P.S. Case No. 87/2023 under Sections 120B/ 273/ 379/ 418/ 420/411 IPC read with Section 59(II) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach before the trial court with an appropriate application seeking zimma of 125 bags of local areca nuts.

Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, 1. Sheikh Abdur Rezzaque Ahmed,

2. Rukia Khatun and 3. Sheikh Junayed Ahmed have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 158/2024 under Section 365/511/354/352/323 IPC r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 75 of JJ Act.

The Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that by order, dated 28.06.2024, this Court granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners and they have appeared before the I.O. and gave their statements.

Date : 11.11.2024

1. Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent.

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamir Uddin, who has been detained behind the bars since Page No.# 2/8 19.12.2022 (for more than 1 year 10 months) in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 170/2022, which is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.12.2022 about 739 grams of heroin was seized from the possession of 4 (four) accused persons including the present petitioner and on 19.12.2022, one Nilov Jyoti Nath, S.I. of Police had lodged an FIR to that affect before the Officer-In-Charge of Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station. On receipt of the said FIR, Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 165/2022 was registered under Section 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against four numbers of accused persons, including the present petitioner on 30.04.2023 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. A. I. Uddin, Advocate For the respondents :

Dates of hearing : 08.11.2024 Date of Judgment : 12.11.2024 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner submitted his bid in respect of the E-Tender Notice No.06/2023- 2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pune, Government of Maharashtra, for supply of minimum 4 months old bamboo seedlings from certified seed source in around 4"x5" size polybags.

...

19. It is clear from the above narrative that none of the documents Page No.# 10/14 produced during the trial answered the description of "the date of birth certificate from the school" or "the matriculation or equivalent certificate"

from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that the victim's age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General Hospital at Vellore, produced the X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a certificate was issued stating "that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years". In the cross-examination, she admitted that M's age could be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that "when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor". This finding is, in this court's considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94 (2)(ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim's bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 18-20 years; in cross-examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-

3. The background facts leading to filing of present appeal are adumbrated herein below:-

The respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a Title Suit being T.S. No.619/2023, before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arraigning the present appellants as defendants and also one Sarojini Das, mother of respondent No.2. as respondent No.3, though she had already died before institution of the Title Suit, on 6.7.2023, and also arraigning Amulya Das, son of Late Lalit Chandra Das, Sri Bhaskar Bhusan Das, son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Bijoy Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Kishore Das, son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Jamini Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Pranab Das, son of Late Narayan Das, Sri Rudreswar Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Bankim Chandra Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, all are resident of Pandu, Sadilapur, P.S. Jalukbari, Guwahati-12, as pro- forma defendant Nos.5 to 13 in the said suit.

11.11.2024 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. P. Page No.# 2/6 Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this application u/s 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 25/07/2023 vide Mankachar PS case No. 308/2023 u/s 376 AB/511 IPC read with Section 8/10 of POCSO Act and section 67 of IT Act.

3. The allegation as per FIR is that on the date of incident when the minor daughter of the informant while visited the house of her father-in-law, the present petitioner along with other co-accused No. 3 and 4 handed over the victim to accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 had kissed the victim girl on her face and different parts of her body and tried to commit rape on her. They also took the photographs of the said incident and made them viral through mobiles.

Date : 11.11.2024 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. By filing this petition u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, Sunu Ali @ Md.

Page No.# 2/8 Nur Hussain has prayed for granting regular bail in connection with NDPS case No. 187/2024 u/s 21©/29 of NDPS Act (arising out of STF PS case no. 20/23) pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The instant case relates to recovery of commercial quantity of heroine from the hidden chamber of Tata Yodha vehicle bearing no. AS-25EC-4464 and the present petitioner was found inside the vehicle along with the alleged contraband. Accordingly, the recovered items were seized and the present accused/ petitioner was arrested.

by Mr. A. Chandran, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.

: Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. M. Phukan, Public Prosecutor, Assam and Ms. P. Barua, Advocate. : Ms. M. Kechii, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland. : Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, Additional Advocate General, Mizoram.

Page No.# 2/16 Date of Hearing : 04.11.2024 Date of judgment : 11.11.2024 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg

The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024.

The time mentioned is peremptory.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months, to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

The Court: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 25th April, 2023, the appeal was admitted and all further proceedings in the suit including the hearing of the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending before the learned Trial Court was initially stayed for eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order was extended from time to time.

2

We feel that the appeal is required to be heard and we do not find any reason to vacate the interim order at this stage.

The interim order passed on 25th April, 2023 is confirmed. The applications stand disposed of.

The appeal shall be listed on 25th November, 2024.

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges.

The respondent expressed lack of confidence on the learned Arbitrator.

The petitioner has pointed out a letter written by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent which, according to the petitioner, was disrespectful to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that the same conduct will be repeated by the respondent's learned Advocate.

Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submits that the letter written by the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent was in answer to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner's Advocate.

2

It appears that there were allegations and counter allegations with regard to the conduct of the parties before the learned Arbitrator. The situation was very unfortunate.