THROUGH JAIL 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. Heard Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the State.

2. The applicant - convict has prayed for temporary bail on the ground of taking appropriate treatment at the private hospital. Considering the reason, we had called for the report from the learned APP. Learned APP had submitted the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Central Jail, which indicates that the applicant was referred to the Orthopaedic Department, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad lastly on 29.2.2020 and was also thereafter referred to Physiotherapy Rehab medicine on 5.3.2020. The certificate further indicates that the applicant refused admission in the hospital for MRI. The certificate also indicates that sonography Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:59:11 IST 2020 R/CR.A/148/2019 IA ORDER was conducted on 18.2.2020 and it is indicated that the applicant is regularly being examined and treated by physician and medical surgeon at jail dispensary.

Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2020:

1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Himanshu K. Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent - State.

2. The present application is filed by the applicant seeking extension of temporary bail for a period of 30 days on the ground of his own nasal surgery. The applicant is granted temporary bail by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2020 for a period of 10 days.

Page 1 of 2

Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:42:37 IST 2020

R/CR.MA/5981/2020 ORDER

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent State and perused the application.

2. On 06/05/2020, this Court has passed the following order:

"Being bail application in succession of previous application being CR.MA No.24178 of 2019, this application is required to be placed before the same Court (Coram: V M Pancholi, J.) as per settled legal position. Accordingly, needful shall be done."

3. Today, the matter has been placed with this Court again with the following administrative order and accordingly, this Court has taken up the matter:

"In view of the circular dt. 30.4.2020 the matter be again placed before Justice G R Udhwani.

Sd/- (07/05/2020) (R M Chhaya J) Under administrative order of Hon'ble'ble the Chief Justice dt. 7.2.2020"

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report registered with the Limkheda Police Station, Dahod district vide FIR No.11821035200189 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Jain, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. He has submitted that as per the case of the Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:18:59 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6486/2020 ORDER prosecution the present applicant is husband of deceased Kailashben who committed suicide jumping in the well along with son Ravindra and daughter Shital. In that incident, Kailashben and Ravindra died whereas daughter Shital has survived. He has also submitted that the reasons mentioned for suicide are mentioned in FIR that the present applicant does not like the deceased and did not want to bring her back as he wanted to bring new wife. He has further submitted that age of deceased Kailashben as shown in FIR is 24 years whereas age of the applicant is 19 years and they had love marriage and out of the said wedlock they gave birth to two children. He has submitted that Aadhar Card clearly describes that the present applicant is born in the year 2001. Moreover, it is case of the prosecution that earlier about five months ago when the deceased Kailashben had gone to the house of the complainant where she complained the complainant i.e. her brother that present applicant had wish to bring new wife as he did not like her. He has submitted that as per FIR itself there is no recent incident which led the deceased for committing suicide. He has also submitted that deceased Kailashben and present applicant are belonging to different castes and community and they conducted love marriage and there is age difference which the complainant who is the brother of the deceased did not like and, therefore, out of vengeance, the false FIR is lodged. At last he has prayed that considering all these aspects and circumstances, present application may be granted.

[2] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State by video conferencing.

[3] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with C.R.No. 11196027200074 of 2020 registered with Karelibaug Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant appearing by video conferencing submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence only on the basis of statement of co- accused and the quantum of liquor is valued at Rs.12,000/- only. He further submits that the nature of allegations are such for which Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:13:13 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/5228/2020 ORDER custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

3. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being I C. R. No. 11213015200127 registered with Gondal City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 30.12.2019 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of two offences under Sections 379(A)(3) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:33:28 IST 2020 C/SCA/1836/2020 ORDER itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 28.1.2020 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of two offences Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:34:26 IST 2020 C/SCA/5912/2020 ORDER under Sections 379(A)(3) of the Indian Penal Code by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 11.12.2019 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(b) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of solitary offence under Sections 66-1B, 65-AE, 98(2) and 116-B of the Prohibition Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:34:07 IST 2020 C/SCA/52/2020 ORDER within the purview of definition under section 2(b) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

[2] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State by video conferencing.

[3] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with C.R.No. 11216004200101 of 2020 registered with Dhaboda Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant appearing by video conferencing submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:24:44 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6597/2020 ORDER from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

18.03.2020.

"Shameem H."

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

By virtue of order dated 29th January, 2020, it was made clear that if the matter was not argued on next date of hearing the interim directions issued would stand vacated.

Today yet again Mr. Haqani is not present and a request is made for adjournment.

SHAMEEM HAMID MIR 2020.03.24 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

--2--

Request as made is rejected. The interim direction in all the three cases i.e. SWP No.2002/20132, SWP No.844/2012 and SWP No.2151/2011 are vacated.

List again on 27th May, 2020.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.

Whether approved for reporting: YES/No Judgment

1. Impugned in this Heabus Corpus petition with a prayer for quashment thereof is the detention order no. 141/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 30.03.2019, purporting to have been passed by District Magistrate Baramulla, whereunder detenu namely Firdous Ahmad Wani s/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Wani R/o Mohalla Bazar Seri Warpora, Pattan District Baramulla, is under detention.

2. Grounds pleaded in support of prayer are that after having been quashed the earlier detention order no. 66/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 20th August 2018, the detenu was again detained in terms of the detention order impugned in this petition on the so called "dossier" placed before respondent no.2, on the same and similar grounds. It is submitted that his further detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State and national law, accordingly while in police custody he was ordered to be detained in preventive custody vide impugned detention order passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla. The earlier detention order was challenged in H.C. Petition No. 239/2018 which was allowed vide judgment dated 11th Dec. 2018, but instead of releasing him from custody, the detaining authority again passed the detention order impugned in the instant petition. During arguments the learned counsel has further elucidated the contents of petition with reference to annexures placed on record, and contended that neither the detention in question was legal nor were grounds HCP no155/2019 1|Page 2 thereof duly communicated to the detenu even though quite vague and unfounded.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.

Whether approved for reporting: YES/No Judgment Through the instant petition, petitioner father of detenu seeks quashment of detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/81/2019 dated 16.08.2019, passed by District Magistrate Srinagar, whereby the detenu namely Tufail Ahmad Zaldar S/o Mohammad Shafi Zaldar R/o Ranger Stop Zaldar Mohalla, Saidakadal, Srinagar, is under detention.

2. In the dossier it is alleged that the detenu is involved in anti- national activities, disturbing the public tranquility and peace in the area of Saidakadal and its adjacent areas. It is submitted that the detenu was found indulging in disturvbing the maintenance of public order by way of resorting to stone pelting. It is submitted that the detenu is a constant threat to the security of the State. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested in cases FIR no. 70/2019 u/s 307, 147 RPC and FIR 47/2019 u/s 147, 148, 336 RPC registered at Police Station Nigeen. Therefore, on these allegations he was slapped under Public Safety Act, 1978.

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, A.P.P.

---------

04/Dated: 06/05/2020 Heard, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy and learned counsel for the State Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, Additional Public Prosecutor.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he may be permitted to make necessary correction in application regarding the provision of law.

Permission is granted.

Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to make necessary correction within 30 days after the lock down period is over as the country is passing through pandemic disease (COVID-

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated: 06/05/2020

The appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per Act, prayer for bail of the accused is to be considered under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in appeal under Section 14A of the Act.

From perusal of record, it appears that earlier this appellant has moved before this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 917 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Coordinate Bench of this Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) on 16.10.2019. Subsequently, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, which is instituted as Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 147 of 2020 on the ground that the appellant is in custody since his surrender on 20.06.2019 and co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the police during investigation of the case.

2. Kanthi Choudhary ...Opp. Parties CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : - Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.

06/06.05.2020 The present revision petition is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand (opposite party no.1).

Admit.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2.

2. Chitranjan Kumar Singh ...Opp. Parties CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : - Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.

06/06.05.2020 The present revision petition is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand (opposite party no.1).

Admit.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the court fee as soon as the judicial work in the High Court gets normal after end of the lockdown prevailing due to Corona (Covid-19) pandemic.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 17.04.2020 issued by the District Certificate Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan (the respondent no.5) whereby the Director of the petitioner-company has been directed to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison for not depositing the certificate amount. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the letter as contained in memo no. 667 dated 16.04.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan (the respondent no. 3) directing the respondent no. 5 to immediately issue warrant of arrest against the Director of the petitioner-company and to take steps for attachment of its property. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the final order if any passed under Section 10 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (in short "the Act, 1914") and to restrain the respondent authorities from taking any precipitate action against the petitioner including suspension of its agreement for milling of rice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument has also prayed for an interim protection from any action to be taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned notice dated 17.04.2020.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Umesh Choudhary has been moved by Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will remove the defects when the physical appearance in the High Court will start.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Lalu Kumar Rana @ Lalu Rana has been moved by Mr. Rahul Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

In view of the allegations, let the case diary and antecedent report of the petitioner be called for from the court concerned.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

-----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Jatin Kumar Manjhi @ Jatin Manjhi has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

---------

For the Petitioners : Ms. Shamma Parveen, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.

---------

th 02/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 370/ 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners is present.

3. Learned A.P.P., submits that case diary is required to assist this Court in the matter, hence prays for time to procure the case diary.

4. Heard. On prayer of learned A.P.P, office to list this case on 08.06.2020.

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Birju Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

02/Dated: 07th May, 2020

1. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 323, 354(A), 354(B), 376, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.PP and on perusal of the deposition of the victim, i.e., P.W. - 1, at Annexure - 2, it appears that during the trial, the victim has deposed that accused Bajrang along with three other accused had caught hold of her and she has identified Bajranj but has not identified the petitioners. In cross- examination she has categorically stated that the petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence.

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

---------

th 05/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioner, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioner/ appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/35, 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.131 of 2017.

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, A.P.P.

---------

th 06/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall file the requisites of notice under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, to be served upon O.P. No.02, at the earliest.

2. On prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, office to list this case on 09.06.2020.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-

2. Manoj Mahato @ Manoj Kr. Mahato

3. Mantu Mahato @ Mantu Lal Mahato

4. Kirtichand Mahato @ Kiriti Bhushan Mahato

5. Nem Chand Mahato

6. Gopal Mahato --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, A.P.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner and his alias name in the body of the petition tallies with his name in the complaint petition, Aadhar Card, impugned order and also in the body of vakalatnama except where petitioner has inscribed his signature. Therefore, the same may be ignored.

In view of the submission made, let the instant defect be ignored. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in present circumstances, undertakes to remove the remaining defect no. 9(ii) and (iii) regarding filing of certain pages within a week. Defect no. 9(v) is ignored as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, last page of the restoration application is not of much relevance. Defect no. 9 (iv) is also ignored.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) which relates to page no. 19 of the petition may be ignored as page is otherwise legible and complete except the last line which is not of much significance. Accordingly, defect no. 9 (ii) and (iv) is ignored. So far defect no. 9(iii) is concerned which relates to non-filing of duly certified typed copy of handwritten pages at Annexure-2 & 3, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also ignored.

2. Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.P. Case No. 96/2019 for the offences registered under sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Miss Babita Mittal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Md. Shamim @ Sotti in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 499 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 4917 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 25(1)(A)(B)(C) of the Arms Act, has been moved by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P. -----

02/07.05.2020. The bail application of Gulli Mandal @ Gurudeo Mandal in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 08 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, has been moved by Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State, which has been conducted through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Karmu Mahato @ Karmu Mahto --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P through Video Conferencing.

2. Amit Kumar Paswan @ Amit Kumar --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Birendra Burman, A.P.P.

----

03/ 07.05.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through Video Conferencing.

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

---------

th 04/Dated: 07 May, 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the petitioners, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioners/ appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 26(2) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, II, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.361 of 2016.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for PCR Cases), Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Rural, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.03.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To

1.The Third Additional District Judge / PCR Court, Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Melur, Madurai District.

2/4

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5163 of 2020

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.The case was registered against the appellant for the offences under Section 294(b) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, 1989 in Crime No. 49 of 2015. After filing of charge sheet, the case has been numbered as Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Sessions Judge(Full Additional Charge), Sivagangai. After framing of charges, trial commenced and during the pendency of the trial, the appellant did not appear before the trial court and due to non appearance of the appellant Non Bailable Warrant was issued on 18.04.2018 and the appellant was remanded on 21.09.2019. It is stated that except the Investigation Officer, all the witnesses were examined.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.The case was registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 342, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989 in Crime No. 74 of 2012. After filing of charge sheet, the case has been numbered as Spl.S.C.No.61 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Sessions Judge(Full Additional Charge), Sivagangai. After framing of charges, trial commenced and during the pendency of the trial, the appellant did not appear before the trial court and due to non appearance of the appellant Non Bailable Warrant was issued on 04.03.2019 and the appellant surrendered before the trial court on 12.03.2020 and filed recall 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.153 of 2020 petition and the same was dismissed the appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 12.03.2020.

2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

07.05.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sj Note: Issue order copy by 13.05.2020 To

1.The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Director of Medical Education, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

2.According to the respondent police, one Arokiyamary was on her morning walk on 19.01.2020 in Alakudi Road when she was robbed of her gold chain. A person coming from behind in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 47 AQ 5726 intercepted her and threatened her with a knife and took away her one sovereign gold chain. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 06.30 A.M and the complaint was lodged at around 8.00 A.M. It was registered as Crime No.10 of 2020 by the respondent for the offences under Sections 392 and 397 of I.P.C.

Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot on Saturday held a global video conference with the state's expatriates and enquired about their well-being amid the Covid-19 pandemic and assured them of the government's full help to their family members living in the country, if they need it. An official statement said Rajasthan natives living in more than 90 cities across 50 countries attended the video conference during which they appreciated the government's efforts to control the coronavirus spread and also offered their help. They proposed financial assistance to stranded migrant workers, arranging training for them to secure better employment abroad, besides cooperation with the state government in education and the developing villages, the release said. They also offered help in skill development for youths besides providing technical skills to new entrepreneurs, the release said. During the conference, many entrepreneurs also gave suggestions to bring the economy of the state back on ...

Sitting on a liquor stockpile of around Rs 3,000 crore, restaurants and hotels across the country are asking state governments to allow them to sell the stock lying with them due to the coronavirus lockdown. "We are truly living in unprecedented times where on one hand we are sitting with expensive liquor inventory and on the other hand, we are cash starved," National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI)PresidentAnurag Katriar said. The industry sees a ray of hope as many states have permitted sales of retail alcohol. "We request every state government to allow us an opportunity to sell our liquor stocks, preferably through home delivery model. "This will help us deplete our stocks, raise some money to take care of urgent people needs and will still be compliant to social distancing norms. We understand that this may require some amendments to the law but I am sure it can be carried out under the current extraordinary circumstances," Katriar said. In similar vein, The Beer Cafe ...

In Kerala, considered a role model for other parts of the country, almost all Muslim children up to the tenth standard are in school, numbers that compare well to that of other communities. Yet, the story is very different when one looks at higher education, writes Deepa A.

Goa is, by Indian standards, a prosperous and progressive state. In terms of human development, access to education and healthcare, for example, it ranks almost as high as Kerala. But, as a small and beautiful state, it feels itself peculiarly vulnerable, writes Ramachandra Guha.

Virat Kohli is in a good frame of mind which gives him confidence of being able to pick up from where he left as and when cricket resumes in the post-Covid world. "... once I am in a good frame of mind and I am keeping myself positive and happy, whenever I return to the game, I know I will be in a good position to start again from where we left," Kohli said.