Read Time: 15 minutes
1. [Mental Health] The Bombay High Court has expressed concern over 379 patients who have been in a mental health institution for a decade despite being certified as fit for discharge, instructing the review board to prioritise and expedite the review of these cases. The division bench of the Bombay High Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by psychiatrist Dr Harish Shetty concerning the conditions of patients at Thane Mental Hospital, some of whom had been there for 12 years. The bench had previously been informed that 1,022 patients were fit for discharge. In response, the bench had directed special attention to be given to 475 of these patients. Subsequently, it was reported that 379 of the 475 patients were indeed fit for discharge.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande.
Case title: Dr. Harish Shetty vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Click here to read more.
2. [Varavara Rao] The Bombay High Court on Monday allowed Bhima Koregaon accused Varavara Rao to travel to Hyderabad for 10 days for cataract surgery. The division bench was hearing a petition filed by the Bhima Koregaon accused, who had been denied permission to travel to Hyderabad for the surgery. Rao had earlier approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to travel to Hyderabad for his cataract surgery. However, the top court asked Rao to approach the Special NIA Court to seek permission to travel for his surgery. Before the High Court, Advocate R Satyanarayana, representing Rao, argued that medical treatment in Mumbai was costly. As a pensioner in Telangana, Rao was eligible for medical benefits as a senior citizen. He further requested a period of 10 days for Rao to stay in Hyderabad.
Bench: Justice AS Gadkari and Justice SC Chandak.
Case Title: Dr. P Varavara Rao vs National Investigating Agency.
3. [Consumer Protection] The Bombay High Court has struck down Rule 6 of the Consumer Protection Rules, which pertains to the formation of the Selection Committee responsible for appointing Presidents and Members of the State and District Consumer Commissions. A division bench at the Bombay High Court at Nagpur was hearing a number of petitions that challenged Rule 6 of the Consumer Protection Rules. The Rule specifies that the Selection Committee is responsible for appointing the President and Members. The Selection Committee is composed of the Chief Justice of the high court or an individual nominated by the Chief Justice to serve as the Chairman. Additionally, the committee includes the secretary in charge of State Consumer Affairs and the Chief Secretary of the State government as its members.
Bench: Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali Joshi.
Case title: Mahendra Limaye & Ors vs Union of India & Ors.
4. [Kirit Somaiya] BJP leader Kirit Somaiya has filed a defamation lawsuit in the Bombay High Court seeking Rs. 100 crore in damages from Lokshahi news channel, Leader of the Opposition of Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray, Ambadas Dave, and YouTuber Anil Thatte. Kirit Somaiya has alleged that the news channel conducted a prime-time show featuring an objectionable video of him. He also claimed that Youtuber Anil Thatte uploaded the same video, which has damaged his reputation. Kirit Somaiya filed a complaint with the cyber cell, leading to the registration of an FIR. Following its mention during the monsoon session in Parliament, the crime branch was instructed to conduct an inquiry.
Bench: Justice SM Modak.
Case title: Kirit Somaiya vs Ambadas Dave & Ors.
5. [Night Local] The Bombay High Court recently denied interim relief to a man convicted by the trial court for outraging the modesty of a woman at Dadar railway station in 2017. A single-judge bench of the high court was hearing a plea for the interim release of a man who had filed a revision application against the sessions court’s order. The woman stated that in 2017, at around 9.30pm, while she was on a train, the man inappropriately pinched her and touched her bottom. When she raised an alarm, a crowd gathered and the man was handed over to the Mumbai Central Railway Police.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre.
Case title: Mayur Suryakant Ghankutkar vs State of Maharashtra.
6. [Transport Minor To USA] The Bombay High Court has recently discharged a man who was charged with conspiring to transport two minors to the USA illegally. The single judge bench of the high court was hearing a revision plea filed by one of the accused whose application for discharge had been dismissed by the Sessions Court. The case revolves around an investigation initiated by the BKC Police after receiving a complaint letter from the Consulate General of the United States of America. The letter detailed the visa application of one Mrs. Nirmala Qureshi, who had applied for U.S. visas for herself and her two children, Sara and Adiv. Since the children were under 14, they were not required to attend the visa interview.
Case title: Zakir Yusuf Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra.
7. [Stalker] The Bombay High Court has recently rejected a revision application filed by the mother of the victim girl, which sought the enhancement of the sentence awarded to a man who was convicted of stalking a minor. The single-judge bench of the high court, was hearing a revision plea filed by the mother of the victim. The 15-year-old daughter had complained about a 30-year-old man stalking her. The man was convicted by the Extra Joint Special POCSO Judge for committing an offence under Section 354A of the IPC, along with Section 12 (Sexual Harassment) of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The high court stated that the imposition of the sentence lies within the discretion of the judge, and since the man had already served his imprisonment and paid the fine, the bench found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the special court.
Case title: Jyoti Daware & Anr vs State of Maharashtra.
8. [NDPS] The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after 1 kg 10 grams of charas were seized from him. However, this quantity was reduced to 1 kg due to drying when presented before the magistrate. It was added that the change in the weight of the 'Charas' was due to moisture at the time of seizure, but after 59 days, it dried, resulting in a different weight in the inventory from the actual weight at the time of seizure. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the weight at the time of seizure should be considered, not the weight taken before the learned Magistrate. He also explained that the 59-day delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the prosecuting agency. However, the bench was of the opinion that the weight of the contraband recorded at the time of inventory before the Magistrate should be considered in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Bench: MS Karnik.
Case title: Sunil Shishupal Nayak vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
