Read Time: 25 minutes
1. [Aurangabad Arms Haul Case] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently granted bail to 41-year-old Afroz Khan after 17 years who was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act Court in the 2006 Aurangabad Arms Haul case. Khan had filed a plea before the high court seeking suspension of sentence and sought bail from the high court pending disposal of the appeal against the order of the special court.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse
Case title: Afroz Khan Shahid Khan Pathan vs State of Maharashtra
Click here to read more
2. [Hasan Mushrif] A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday extended the interim relief granted to former cabinet minister NCP leader Hasan Mushrif till July 11. Hasan Mushrif is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate in the PMLA case. Mushrif had filed an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Special PMLA Court. The Special Court while rejecting the pre-arrest plea had granted 3 days to Mushrif to approach the High Court.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai
Case Title: Hasan Mushrif vs Enforcement Directorate
3. [Open Manholes in Mumbai] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has remarked that citizens should be aware of their rights to report when they see an open manhole while hearing a contempt plea concerning open manholes in the city of Mumbai."Citizens should be aware of their rights. They should report when they see an open manhole," the bench observed. The high court was hearing a contempt plea filed by Ruju Thakker against the order passed by the High Court in 2018 in a Public Interest Litigation. The 2018 order was passed by the high court pursuant to a plea filed before the high court after a man died due to falling into a manhole during the monsoon season in August 2017.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor
Case title: Ruju Thakker vs State of Maharashtra
4. [Applicant Fixing Itineries Before Permit From Court] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently expressed displeasure over applicants fixing their itineraries before courts deciding their pleas to travel abroad and suspending Look Out Circulars. "We have previously expressed our displeasure at the manner in which these Applications are being made with Applicants finalizing their itineraries even before they seek leave of the Court. This is not a question of whether or not there is a right that is violated. In all these Applications it seems that Courts are more or less being taken for granted, that permissions will follow and that matters and, more importantly, that Applications will be taken up on a priority basis and even out of turn to permit the Applicants to keep to their itineraries. This is not acceptable. The parties seeking stay on any Look Out Circular (“LOC”) are required to apply to the Court in good time and not to attempt to pressurize the Courts," the court observed.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale
Case title: Sanjay Dangi vs UOI
5. [Domestic Violence Act] The Bombay High Court last week held that even after divorce, a Muslim woman can seek maintenance and protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). A single judge bench of Nagpur Bench observed that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the husband (herein non-applicant as per the present court) had given divorce (Talaq) to the wife (applicant), she cannot be denied maintenance in the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The court was hearing a criminal revision application filed by the husband against the order dated November 17, 2021 passed by Session Judge Akola, wherein the session judge had dismissed the appeal filed by him and allowed the criminal appeal filed by his wife and enhanced the amount of maintenance quantified by the Magistrate.
Bench: Justice GA Sanap
Case title: X vs Y
6. [Termination of Rape Victims Pregnancy] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently denied termination of pregnancy to a 15-year-old rape victim after the experts opined that a live baby would be born. The high court was hearing a plea filed by the biological mother of the 15-year-old who had gone missing in February 2023. The girl was taken away by the accused to Jodhpur as the accused promised to marry her. Both of them lived together in Jodhpur. The victim then conceived a child which had entered the 28th week.
Bench: Justice Ravindra Gauge and Justice Y.G Khobragde
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
7. [Sanjay Raut Cancellation of Bail] Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh on Tuesday told the Bombay High Court that the Special PMLA Court while granting bail to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut along with Pravin Raut had made observation about the Enforcement Directorate as if it was dealing with Public Interest Litigation. "No one had argued about illegal arrest and he has observed that. Then he makes observation of the conduct of the agency as if he is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation while it was no body's case about the lethargy of the officers. Who had argued that? No body pointed it out? That cannot be a ground for granting bail," ASG submitted. The high court was hearing a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of Special PMLA court granting bail to Sanjay Raut and Pravin Raut.
Case Title: Enforcement Directorate vs Pravin Raut & Anr.
8. [MCOCA] In relation to the cases registered under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Bombay High Court has held that it would not be the appropriate report for extension of time of detention of the accused if the Public Prosecutor (PP) merely reproduces the application or request of the Investigating Officer in his report. Terming the detention of a 20-year-old accused as “illegal”, a division bench directed his release on bail after it found that there was no independent report of the PP showing application of mind and recording his satisfaction for the purpose of extension to file a charge-sheet.
Bench: Justices Vinay Joshi and Bharat P Deshpande
Case title: Darshan Subhash Nandagawali v. State of Maharashtra
9. [Harrasment of Canteen Owner] The Bombay High Court recently ordered an Assistant Police Inspector of Maharashtra police to pay Rs. 25000 from his salary account to a canteen owner for causing harassment and disobeying the court’s order. A division bench was hearing the petition against the high-handedness of the police for forcibly shutting down the canteen of the petitioner during night hours situated at the S.T. bus stand in Beed district. In 2014, the High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner clarifying that the restrictions of not operating the shop after 11.00 p.m. will not apply in view of the exemptions provided under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act and the Bombay Police Act, 1951
Bench: Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y.G. Khobragade
Case title: Ram vs State of Maharashtra
10. [Mahesh Raut - Bhima Koregaon] The National Investigating Agency, on Tuesday, in its reply to the bail plea filed by Bhima Koregaon accused Mahesh Raut, told the Bombay High Court that Mahesh Raut was a part of giving mileage to the subversive activities against the country."Raut is one of the members who is part of giving mileage to such subversive activities against this country. Hence he is not entitled to any relief keeping in view the gravity of the offence and its bearing on the State," the NIA said in its affidavit. The NIA in its affidavit in reply before the Bombay High Court opposed the regular bail plea filed by Bhima Koregaon accused Mahesh Raut who sought bail on constitutional grounds.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SG Dige
Case title: Mahesh Raut vs NIA
11. [Infra Facilities for Woman Lawyers] A division bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday formed a committee consisting of Principal District Judge of each district along with female office bearer of the Bar Association to address the issue faced by women lawyers and staff in the courts of Maharashtra. "The Committee shall be constituted in each District in the State of Maharashtra. The Committee shall consist of Principal District Judge, a lady officer bearer of the Bar Association nominated by the Principal District Judge, (if not available a lady member of the Bar) a lady member of non-judicial staff, Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department and a representative of Revenue Department not below the rank of Additional Collector. The Committee shall be headed by the Principal District Judge. The Executive Engineer and the Additional Collector will work as ex-officio members of the Committee. The order was passed yesterday by the division bench while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Jan Adalat Centre for para-legal Services and legal aid society" the order reads
Case title: Jan-Adalat Centre for para-legal Services And Legal Aid Society, Through its Authorized Representative Madhavi Pardeshi & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra
12. [Observation Of Earlier Rejection of Bail Not Sole Purpose To Reject Bail] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently while granting bail to two individuals observed that support of observations in the earlier order can be taken, but it cannot be the sole reason to reject a fresh bail application. "In fact, filing of charge-sheet subsequently amounts to change in the circumstance, giving a right to the concerned accused to make fresh application for bail. Each bail application will have to be decided on its own merits. The support of observations in the earlier order can be taken, but it cannot be the sole reason to reject a fresh bail application," the high court observed.
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase
Case title: Yogesh Dhande & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
14. [Domestic Violence] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently observed that the degree of domestic violence is immaterial if the woman proves that she has suffered from domestic violence. "Learned Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court has held that it is meager domestic violence. Provisions of the Act however do not differentiate or determine degrees of domestic violence. Domestic violence does not depend on its severity for the purpose of proceeding under the Act. Any woman who proves that she has suffered domestic violence at the hands of Respondent, the degree of the said violence becomes immaterial. Both Courts, therefore, have committed error in holding that it is meager domestic violence committed against Petitioner," the court observed. The high court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman against the order of the sessions court. The woman alleged that her husband behaved indecently with her and caused sexual harassment. The woman, because of the ill-treatment stopped living with her husband and went to live with her mother in 2017.
Bench: Justice RM Joshi
Case title: ABC vs XYZ
15. [Raymond Group Chairman] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has recently quashed and set aside an order passed by the magistrate issuing process against Raymond Group Chairman Gautam Singhania under the Legal Metrology Act. The legal metrology officer had registered a case against Singhania after he visited a store of Reliance Trends Ltd and found that a package did not have a requisite declaration as per the Act. After a case was registered, the magistrate issued summons which was challenged before the Bombay High Court. The other directors of the company were also booked and issued summons. However, after approaching the division bench of the Bombay High Court, relief was granted to them.
Case title: Gautam Hari Singhania vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
