Read Time: 19 minutes
1. [Bail To Doctor] The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a 31-year-old MBBS doctor who faced charges for allegedly performing an abortion without the woman's permission, allegedly at the behest of her husband and mother-in-law. A single-judge bench of the high court, led by Justice MM Sathaye was hearing an urgent application moved by the doctor who was required to report to Mizoram for a post-diploma course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Advocate DA Nalavade, representing the doctor, argued that the FIR lacks information about the date of the alleged incident. Nalavade pointed out that on 28/12/2022, sonography was conducted in Kolhapur, revealing that the complainant was already 1½ months (six weeks) pregnant at that time. Even accounting for the date mentioned in the complainant's statement, it suggests she was at least 16 weeks pregnant on that date, based on the sonography report. Nalavade emphasized that considering these dates, a medical abortion by simply inserting medicine is not feasible. An abortion at such an advanced stage would require a procedure or operation, leaving a traceable record.
Bench: Justice MM Sathaye.
Case title: Dr Digvijay Abhay Patil vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [SC/ST Act] The Bombay High Court has sought the assistance of the Advocate General of Maharashtra and Additional Solicitor General of India to decide which proceedings are to be recorded under Section 15A of the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice SV Kotwal was hearing a matter referred by Justice Sadhna Jadhav before the larger bench for adjudication. “Having regard to the importance of the issues which have been referred for decision to this Bench, we request the learned Additional Solicitor General of India to address the Court on the next date. We also request the learned Advocate General to extend his assistance in the matter,” the order reads. The division bench also appointed Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. Justice Sadhna Jadhav in its order had stated that the issue regarding the implementation of sub-clause 10 of Section 15A of said Act deserves to be referred to a larger bench to dwell upon the issues.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice SV Kotwal.
Case title: Hema Suresh Ahuja & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
3. [Kusti Teacher] The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to a kusti (wrestling) teacher who was accused of sexually assaulting and harassing 10 male minors. A single-judge bench led by Justice MM Sathaye heard a plea filed by Sameer Lawarte, a wrestling teacher instructing students at Dyan Prabodhini Prashala in Pune. Lawarte faced charges under Section 8 (Sexual assault) and Section 12 (Sexual harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Allegedly, the wrestling teacher committed the said acts between June 2020 and September 2022, leading to the filing of the FIR on September 21, 2023. The counsel representing the applicant argued that the nature of the sport of Kusti involves training with a specific type of clothing (langot) and that training necessarily entails physical engagement among the students or with the teacher, usually in a place called an akhada filled with red clay. The counsel added that he had the school's permission to teach Kusti to the students in the akhada. Consequently, he contended that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute the alleged offence, and he should be granted ad-interim protection.
Case title: Sameer Lawate vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
4. [Pensioners] The Bombay High Court recently observed that if officers address the grievances of pensioners, there would be no need for them to approach the courts. “While parting we may also record that this case is certainly an eye-opener that if the officers promptly consider the grievances of the pensioners like the petitioner, there would be no need for the pensioners to approach the Courts. We may observe that many of such issues, in fact, do not require adjudication and can stand resolved at the level of the department, provided there is a willingness to do so, of the officers of the State Government,” the bench noted. The bench also observed that the pension is the basic entitlement of the retired employee and they cannot be deprived of the same. “From the beginning of the present proceedings, we were wondering as to whether any person who superannuates after a long unblemished service should at all suffer such plight, after having rendered long service (in the present case of about 30 years) and be deprived of the basic entitlement of receiving pension, being the very source of livelihood,” the bench observed. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain, was hearing a petition filed by a retired hamal (coolie) who served Savitribai Phule Pune University and was denied pension.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain.
Case Title: Shri. Jayram Baburao More vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
5. [Murder of Wife] The Bombay High Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted of murder and demanding dowry from his wife, observing that merely because the body of his wife was found in his house, the burden cannot be put on him to prove the circumstances in which the wife died. “Merely because the dead body was inside the house and it was the normal place of abode for the accused, we cannot employ the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and put a burden on the accused that he should explain the circumstances in which his wife was murdered inside the house,” the order reads. A division bench of the high court at Aurangabad, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghase, was hearing an appeal filed by the husband who was convicted under Section 302 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the trial court. The father of the deceased filed a complaint alleging that after eight-nine months of marriage, the man and his family had started harassing her and demanded Rs 15,000, which they claimed they needed for constructing a house under the ‘Gharkul Yojana’. The father was initially informed that the deceased had died due to a snake bite. However, upon reaching the spot, he observed strangulation marks on her neck, leading to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR).
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghase.
Case title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra.
6. [Pre Arrest Bail To Cop In Rape Case] The Bombay High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to a Pune cop who was booked for raping his colleague. A single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice Nitin Jamadar, was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by the cop who was charged under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. The FIR was registered against the cop after a complaint was filed by the first informant, Naik, who is a police officer. It was alleged that the applicant proposed to the informant, asking her to dissolve the marital bond with her husband. Subsequently, the applicant started to visit the house of the first informant. The informant alleged that the applicant started to poison the mind of her husband against her, leading to an increase in discord between her and her husband. She added that while she was residing at the Swargate police colony, the applicant sexually exploited her by spiking her cold drink and giving her tablets. Furthermore, it was claimed that the applicant made videos of her and threatened to make them viral.
Bench: Justice NJ Jamadar.
Case title: Deepak Sitaram Moghe vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
7. [Caste Scrutiny Committee] The Bombay High Court recently observed that the Caste Scrutiny Committee does not have the jurisdiction to review its own order on an application or suo moto. “This apart as noted above, in the decisions as rendered by this Court, it has been consistently held that there is no jurisdiction as conferred by the 2000 Act on the Caste Scrutiny Committee to review its own order either on an application or suo motu,” the order reads. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain, was hearing 10 petitions filed by government employees challenging the order passed by the scrutiny committee invalidating the certificates issued to them between 1992 and 2005. The division bench stated that if a Caste Scrutiny Committee has granted validity to a caste certificate, and it is later being questioned, it can only be done on a prima facie satisfaction of the high court through acceptable and legitimate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such a plea would need to be accepted for reopening or re-examining the issue by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Case title: Bharat Nagu Garud & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Please Login or Register
