Read Time: 22 minutes
1. [Custody] The Bombay High Court has awarded custody of a child to the aunt after determining that the biological mother has significant psychological issues, while the biological father exhibits aggressive behaviour. The petitioner's custody plea was heard by Justice RI Chagla, who argued that she is better suited to ensure the child's welfare. She added that she was responsible for the child's care since their birth and the child was brought to her home after being discharged from the hospital. The biological father had filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she had forcibly taken the child from his biological parents.
Bench: RI Chagla.
Case title: ABC vs XYZ.
Click here to read more.
2. [Rape] The Bombay High Court has recently acquitted a 41-year-old man who was charged under Section 376 in a rape case filed in 2019. The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court was hearing an appeal against the Sessions Court's decision to deny the accused's discharge in the case. The complaint was lodged by the victim in 2019, wherein she alleged that she had been in a relationship with the accused since 1997 on the pretext of marriage they had engaged in sexual relations. She further claimed to have undergone two abortions at the behest of the accused. In 2019, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the sessions court, which observed that the victim had engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with the accused for 20-25 years. The Sessions Court noted that it appeared to be a case of consensual sexual involvement and did not amount to rape under false promise.
Bench: Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar.
Case Title: Harish Panditrao Bhailume vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
3. [Pre Arrest Bail In Rape Case] The Bombay High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to a man who was a distant relative of the victim in a rape case while observing that the relationship appeared consensual. The plea filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail was heard by a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court. The applicant, a distant relative, was initially called to the victim's house to take photographs. However, a dispute arose when the victim asked the applicant to delete the photographs. This led to an argument between the applicant and the victim's husband.
Bench: Justice NJ Jamadar.
Case title: Atul Ramchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra.
4. [Rahul Gandhi] Congress leader and Member of Parliament, Rahul Gandhi, has moved the Bombay High Court to seek the quashing of the criminal defamation proceedings that were initiated against him for his statements connecting the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh. Gandhi has challenged the order of the Borivali Magistrate Court, which refused to dismiss the defamation complaint filed against him. Joshi alleged that Rahul Gandhi made statements against the RSS, linking the organization in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh while speaking to the media outside the Parliament. Joshi claimed that he saw on national media that Gandhi stated “Anybody who speaks against the ideology of the BJP, against the ideology of the RSS is pressured, beaten, attacked and even killed."
Bench: Justice SV Kotwal.
Case title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra.
5. [Rs 25k Cost on Rape Victim] The Bombay High Court has recently imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a woman who first filed an FIR for rape against a man, alleging forceful termination of pregnancy, but later gave her consent to have the FIR quashed. In 2017, the woman filed a complaint against Sandip Patil and his family, including the doctors, accusing them of terminating her pregnancy. As a result, the accused were booked under the Indian Penal Code and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. She alleged that Patil and his family had assaulted her and coerced her into terminating her pregnancy twice, once in Solapur, Maharashtra, and the second time in Karnataka. The division bench of the high court took on record the affidavit filed by the complainant that stated that the relationship with the accused was consensual.
Bench: Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar.
Case title: Sandip Sundarrao Patil & Ors vs State of Maharashtra.
6.[Jesus Christ] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that having a photograph of Jesus Christ in one's house does not imply conversion to Christianity. The bench was hearing of a petition filed by a minor girl challenging the district caste scrutiny committee's report, which had denied her a caste certificate. The scrutiny committee denied the caste certificate after the vigil cell of the committee discovered a picture of Jesus Christ in her house. The committee asserted that the girl's father and grandfather had converted to Christianity. The minor girl, in her response to the bench, explained that she practised Buddhism and should be certified as a member of the 'Mahar' community, which is recognized as a scheduled caste under the Constitution.
Bench: Justice Prithviraj Chauhan and Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke.
Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
7. [Negotiable Instruments] The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that proceedings under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be initiated against an unregistered partnership firm, and it can be arraigned as an accused. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881, outlines the offences that may be committed by a company. The explanation provided in Section 141 of the act clarifies that a company includes a firm and an association of individuals. However, it does not make any distinction between registered and unregistered firms. The bench concurred with the applicant's argument and held that it is mandatory to include the company or the firm, as the case may be, as a party accused in the complaint.
Bench: Justice Anil Pansare.
Case title: Satheesan Kuttappan vs P. P. Sudhakaran & Ors.
8. [Juvenile Justice] In a recent hearing, the Bombay High Court has raised concerns over the staggering number of pending cases, exceeding 40,000, under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act). The court observed that such a high backlog undermines the spirit of the JJ Act, which mandates inquiries to be completed within four months. To address this issue, court has directed the State Women and Children Department to collect data on case disposals within the last three years and provide details on pending cases. The Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees are also required to explain the reasons for the backlog and any difficulties faced in the prompt disposal of cases. The collected data will be analyzed and presented to the court through an affidavit.
Bench: Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande.
Case Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
9. [Pakistan Artists] The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition that called for the issuance of a notification for a complete ban on Indian citizens and entities from engaging in any form of association with Pakistani artists, including cinema workers, singers, musicians, lyricists, and technicians. The division bench of the Bombay High Court observed that the participation of the Pakistan Cricket Team in the world cup was made possible due to the positive measures undertaken by the Government of India. Qureshi sought directions to be issued to the Union of India to take strict penal action on non-compliance of the ban along with the cooperation of the Police. Qureshi argued that failure to impose the ban could result in discrimination against Indian artists. He pointed out that a similar favourable environment for working in the Indian film industry, which is made available to Pakistani artists, is not reciprocated for Indian artists working in Pakistan.
Bench: presided over by Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Faaiz Anwar Qureshi vs UOI & Ors.
10. [Rohit Pawar] On Thursday, the Bombay High Court quashed the closure order passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) which had directed a sugar factory owned by Baramati Agro Ltd, a company under the control of NCP MLA Rohit Pawar, the grandnephew of Sharad Pawar. The division bench of the high court has remanded the matter to the MPCB for fresh consideration. The high court observed that the order passed by the MPCB to close the factory had been done hastily, without due consideration of the company's response, enforcement policies, and the principle of proportionality. The company had approached the high court after it received the closure notice on September 28, 2023, at 2 AM. The MPCB had instructed the company to shut down the factory within 72 hours of issuing the notice.
Case title: Baramati Agro Ltd. vs MPCB.
11. [NDPS] The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to a man who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after the court discovered that, despite the authorized officer being present, an unauthorized officer conducted the search of the accused. The police found the behaviour of the two individuals to be suspicious, and when they attempted to flee, they were apprehended. A search was conducted, revealing 240 bottles of BDPL Chlorpheniramine Maleate & Codeine Phosphate Syrup (100 ml each) (Phensirest Cough Syrup with Codeine). In its order, the bench noted that there was a lack of proper compliance with the provisions regarding the search of the applicant, as the search was not conducted by the empowered officer.
Bench: Justice MS Karnik.
Case Title: Shafat Mausin Khan vs State of Maharashtra.
12. [MTP] The Bombay High Court has sought the Maharashtra Government's response to raise awareness about medical boards created under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The high court had recently allowed the termination of a 32-year-old woman's pregnancy when she was 26 weeks pregnant. Advocate Anubha Rastogi, along with Advocate Rachita Padwal, representing the petitioner, informed the bench that medical boards had not been established in the State of Maharashtra. Even if they exist, people are not aware of them. The high court will now take up the matter on 7th November 2023.
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse.
Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
