Read Time: 21 minutes
1. [Life Imprisonment For Father] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently upheld a life conviction sentence awarded to a father who was convicted of raping her 12-year-old daughter. The appellant-father was convicted by a Special POCSO Court under the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, against which he had filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court.
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghase.
Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra.
Click here to read more.
2. [Whatsapp Status] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur recently refused to quash an FIR against an individual booked under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act for posting an objectionable WhatsApp status, as the court found no justification for displaying such content. During the hearing of a case, the high court addressed an allegation wherein the informant accused the applicant of posing a question to be searched on Google. The applicant added a status that suggested one would obtain shocking results upon searching. Subsequently, the informant conducted a Google search, which led to the discovery of objectionable material amounting to outraging the religious feelings of a class.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes.
Case title: Kishor Pandurang Landkar vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
3. [Drones During Modi Visit] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently quashed the FIR and chargesheet against two individuals who were booked for flying drones during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Mumbai in June 2022. In a case before the high court, the petitioners, who were employees of a company, had been flying drones between Pedder Road and the Russian Cultural Centre on 12 and 13 June 2022. The drones were being flown in accordance with the permission granted by the Police.
Bench: Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice RN Laddha.
Case title: Mr Tirthankar Suvankar Ganguly & Anr vs State of Maharashtra.
4. [Rakesh Roshan] A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court issued notice to two individuals who deceived Bollywood Producer Rakesh Roshan by posing as CBI personnel and extorting 50 lakhs from him as a case settlement. In 2012, Roshan was duped by two accused who had disguised as CBI personnel and had taken 50 lakhs from him as a settlement in a case. After Roshan became suspicious, he filed a complaint with Anti-Corruption Bureau. The two accused were arrested and it was found that they had duped other film stars too. Allegedly, the money recovered from the duo also included Rs. 50 Lakh which was taken from Roshan
Bench: Justice PD Naik.
Case Title: Rakesh Roshan vs State & Ors.
5. [Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa directed the Goa government to declare MHADEI Wildlife Sanctuary as a tiger reserve within 3 months. The high court was hearing a plea seeking directions to the respondents to notify Mhadei Wild Life Sanctuary and other areas as a “tiger reserve” under Chapter IV-B of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA).
Bench: Justice MS Sonak and Justice Bharat Deshpande.
Case title: The Goa Foundation vs State of Goa & Ors.
6. [Compensation For Farmers] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently directed the State Government and the acquiring authority to compensate the farmers for acquiring their lands while observing that despite the court orders neither the authority nor the state government were being sensitized.
Bench: Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice YG Khobragade.
Case title: Vasudeo Sonu Patil & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
7. [10kg Charas Laced Brownies] A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court recently denied bail to a man who was found in possession of 10kg of brownies, 320 grams of opium, and cash exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. The judge observed that drug abuse not only affects the user but also has long-term and devastating consequences on the entire family. The high court was considering a bail application filed by a person booked under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The appellant's bail plea had been rejected by the Special Court, citing that the seized contraband was of commercial quantity and considering the severity of the offense. In response, the appellant filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai.
Case title: Rahmeen Rafiq Charania vs Union of India.
8. [Externment Order] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court in Nagpur recently quashed an externment order passed against a man externing him from the entire district of Amravati. The court observed that such an externment order can lead to financial distress for the dependents of the person, potentially causing them to suffer from hunger and starvation. The high court was considering a plea filed by a man challenging the order of the deputy commissioner that resulted in externing the petitioner from the district of Amravati.
Bench: Justice GA Sanap.
Case title: Sachin Raut vs Divisional Commissioner & Ors.
9. [ED To Refund Money After 35 Years] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has ordered the Enforcement Directorate to refund Rs. 1,48,000 along with 6% interest to a cloth store owner, 35 years after the money was seized. The court observed that the cloth store owner was deprived of the money on a completely baseless and unjustifiable ground.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Rajesh S Patil.
Case title: Shri Abdul Aziz Ahmed Ansari vs UOI.
10. [NCP Leader Rohit Pawar] A division bench of the Bombay High Court has recently stayed the proceedings against company controlled by the NCP MLA Rohit Pawar. The NCP MLA, Rohit Pawar, is the grand nephew of the NCP President Sharad Pawar and nephew of Deputy Chief Minister of the Maharashtra Ajit Pawar. The executive director of the company had approached the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR against company which was lodged by a BJP leader who has lost to Rohit Pawar during the assembly elections.
Bench: Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice RN Laddha.
Case title: Subhash Jagannath Gulave vs State of Maharashtra.
11. [SC/ST] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently expressed strong disapproval towards the Special judges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for their failure to adhere to the mandatory provision under Section 15A. The high court was considering a plea filed by a man against the order of the Special Judge rejecting his bail application. An FIR was registered against the man by the father of the victim after her 15-year-old daughter was found dead in a field
Case title: Kishor Shivdas Shinde vs State of Maharashtra.
12. [Section 21 of NIA Act] A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently appointed Senior Advocate Abad Ponda and Senior Advocate Sharad Jagtiani as amicus curiae to aid the court in determining whether an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act can be entertained after the statutory period of 90 days. During the hearing of two appeals filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days, the Bombay High Court appointed Senior Advocate Abad Ponda and Senior Advocate Sharad Jagtiani as amicus curiae.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde vs NIA & Anr.
13. [Covid Jumbo Centre Scam] A division bench of the Bombay High Court issued a notice last week in the plea filed by Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut's aide, Sujit Patkar. The plea sought the quashing of the FIR registered against him in the COVID centre scam. During the pandemic, Sujit Patkar and his partners were awarded the contract for the Covid-19 Jumbo Centre in Worli. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate registered a money laundering case against Patkar based on the investigation conducted by the Mumbai Police. Following the Mumbai Police's probe, the case was transferred to the Economic Offence Wing.
Case title: Sujit Mukund Patkar vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
14. [Section 498A] A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently held that in order to establish an offence under Section 498A, there must be either an illegal demand or the woman should be driven to commit suicide.
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapangoankar.
Case title: Santosh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra.
15. [HC Reprimand Sessions Court Judge] A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently reprimanded a sessions judge of Osmanabad for not following the high court order granting bail to a murder accused. The high court was hearing a plea filed by a man who was denied bail by the high court itself, but he was granted liberty to approach the high court again if the trial did not conclude within eight months. However, instead of approaching the high court as per the earlier order, the man filed an application before the sessions court, and the additional sessions judge granted him bail.
Bench: Justice RM Joshi.
Case title: Ramchandra Maruti Yedage vs State of Maharashtra.
16. [Transgender & Homosexual] The division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, on Friday, raised the question of whether the Maharashtra Police Manual could be amended to better protect the rights of transgender and homosexual individuals. The division bench also called upon the Inspector General (Prisons) of Maharashtra to provide suggestions for the treatment of transgender and homosexual persons in prison. The high court was hearing a plea filed by a lesbian couple seeking protection from opposition by one of their families regarding their relationship. One of the girls, hailing from a state in North India, had her family file a missing person complaint.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere & Justice Gauri Godse.
Please Login or Register
