Read Time: 25 minutes
1. [CrPc] The Bombay High Court has recently observed the Code of Criminal Procedure does not envisage a one-sided investigation to substantiate only the case of the prosecution. “It is a requirement of fair trial that there is fair investigation, and there can be no fair investigation if the investigating officer does not take into consideration all relevant material which is desirable for the purpose of investigation. Needless to say that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not envisage one sided investigation aimed at collecting material only to substantiate the case of prosecution,” the bench observed. They contended that the officer has a duty to conduct the investigation in an unbiased and legal manner and that he is bound to consider the material irrespective of whether it supports the case of the prosecution. The bench agreed with the same and noted that there is no provision in the law that precludes the investigating officer from going through the material if he finds it relevant and germane to arrive at the truth.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice MW Chandwani.
Case title: Nikhil Ashokrao Waghmare & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Click here to read more.
2. [Rakesh Wadhawan] The Bombay High Court has denied medical bail to DHFL promoter Rakesh Wadhawan, one of the accused in the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Fraud Case Rakesh Wadhawan and his son Sarang Wadhwan were accused of fraudulently obtaining loans amounting to Rs 2,558 crore from PMC Bank and failing to repay the due amount of Rs. 4,435 crore along with interest. Justice Bharathi Dangre was hearing the medical bail plea filed by the DHFL promoter, who was booked in the fraud case involving Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank. The high court directed the dean of JJ Hospital to depute a male nurse and physiotherapist at the Arthur Road prison for Wadhawan's treatment. The high court had earlier directed Wadhawan to be admitted to JJ Hospital and conduct an examination and submit the medical reports.
Bench: Justice Bharathi Dangre.
Case title: Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan vs State of Maharashtra.
3. [Poor AQI in Mumbai] The Bombay High Court has taken suo moto cognisance of the poor Air Quality Index (AQI) in the city of Mumbai. The division bench of the high court issued notice to the BMC, Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The division bench directed the BMC, MPCB, and SPCB to respond and provide information about the steps they have taken in response to the increasing bad Air Quality Index (AQI). The bench pointed out that the Air Quality Index (AQI) consistently indicates that the air quality is deteriorating every day and everywhere, and there is not a single area in Mumbai that remains unaffected by deteriorating air quality.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: High Court On Its Own Motion.
4. [Air Conditioners In Bar Room] Five former Presidents of the Advocates Association of Western India, including four senior advocates, have filed a petition in the Bombay High Court seeking the installation of air conditioning systems in the Advocates Bar Rooms in the high court. Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the state government, informed the bench that a government resolution has been passed, and funds have been allocated for the required infrastructure. The petition has been filed by Senior Advocates Shirish Gupte, Ashok Mundargi, Prasad Dhakephalkar, Rajiv Patil, and Advocate Balkrishna Joshi. The plea states that air-conditioning systems were installed in the courts in the year 2000 to avoid the noise from outside the high court. The exhaust systems were installed outside the bar rooms, which resulted in the bar rooms remaining hot. The petition states that currently there is no proper ventilation in the Advocates Bar Roms in the high court premises due to exhausts.
Case title: Shirish Gupte & ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
5. [Pandharpur Temple Act] The Bombay High Court on Wednesday said it will hear the Public Interest Litigation filed by Former Rajya Sabha MP challenging vires of the Pandharpur Temples Act that allowed the Maharashtra government to take control over the administration of the temples. Advocate General Birendra Saraf and Subramanian Swamy informed the bench that the pleadings were completed and the matter could be kept for a final hearing. The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor said it will list the PIL for final hearing on January 10 at 2:30 PM. The former member of Rajya Sabha, Subramanian Swamy had filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court for freeing the temples of Lord Vithal and Lord Rukmini at Pandharpur from the government-controlled administration. Swamy’s plea states that by taking control over the Pandharpur Temples the government is ousting the rights of Hindus to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, and to manage Hindu Religious Endowments and their own affairs in matters of religion.
Case title: Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. State of Maharashtra.
6. [Fire Fighter Jobs] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that having different height eligibility criteria for women firefighter jobs in municipal corporations is “arbitrary”. A division bench was hearing a petition filed by female candidates who participated in the selection process for the post of firefighter conducted by the Pune Municipal Corporation. The female candidates argued that they were facing discrimination because they did not meet the height criteria established by the corporation. According to the Pune Municipal Corporation, women must have a minimum height of 162 cm to be eligible to participate in the selection process. The petitioners argued that the Maharashtra Fire Brigade Service Administration had set a minimum height requirement of 157 cm for women candidates for the post of fire extinguisher. They further claimed that only Pune Corporation, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and Thane Municipal Corporation had adopted the 162 cm height requirement for women candidates, while several other similar corporations maintained the 157 cm requirement for such posts.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain.
Case title: Pallavi Rajendra Jangale & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
7. [Right To Cross Examine vs Inconvenience To Witness] The Bombay High Court has directed a Special CBI ACB (Anti-Corruption Bureau) Court in Pune to summon a witness from Chennai to Pune for cross-examination, prioritizing the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses over the inconvenience caused to the witness due to travelling. Justice Bharathi Dangre was hearing a plea moved by one of the accused whose request for recalling a witness from Chennai to Pune was rejected. While directing the recall of the witness from Chennai to Pune for cross-examination, the bench observed that the right to cross-examine a witness is a valuable right. Justice Dangre noted that when balancing the rights of the accused and the inconvenience caused to the witness, it would be appropriate to give more weight to the rights of the accused.
Case title: Ravi Rao Addanki vs CBI EOW & Anr.
8. [Father Kidnapping] The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that a father, as a lawful guardian, cannot be charged with kidnapping his child if he takes the child away from the mother's custody. “Natural father of the minor child is also a lawful guardian along with the mother, and therefore, father of the minor cannot be said to have committed the offence under Section 361 of the IPC so as to made punishable under Section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” the order reads. The high court was hearing a plea filed by the father seeking the quashing of an FIR in which he was booked for kidnapping under the IPC. The mother, who was the complainant, alleged that on 29.03.2023, the father forcibly took away their 3-year-old son, which she considered an act of kidnapping. Advocate Pahan Dahat, representing the father, argued that the father's actions do not constitute the offence of kidnapping as defined under Section 361 of the IPC, punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. He emphasized that the father, as the natural guardian of the minor, should not be charged with the offence.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki Menezes.
Case title: Ashish Anilkumar Mule vs State of Maharashtra.
9. [Pre-Arrest Bail] The Bombay High Court has ruled that a person who is already in custody in one case can file an application for anticipatory bail in another case where he apprehends arrest. “The conspectus of aforesaid discussion is that there is no reason to take a different view of the matter. Thus, I am impelled to hold that the fact that the applicant is already in custody in one case does not preclude him from seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with another case in which he apprehends arrest. Resultantly, the objection to maintainability of the application on the said count stands disallowed,” the order reads. The single-judge bench, presided over by Justice NJ Jamadar, was hearing a pre-arrest bail application filed by Amar Mulchandani, a BJP Leader who was already in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate. He sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR filed against him in the Seva Vikas Bank Scam case, where he was accused of defrauding the bank of Rs. 429 crores. Mulchandani had filed an application before the high court, seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR filed against him under the Indian Penal Code.
Justice: Justice NJ Jamadar.
Case title: Amar S. Mulchandani vs State of Maharashtra.
10. [Structural Audit of High Court building] The Bombay High Court has declined to disclose the details of the structural audit of its building in Mumbai in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application. The Public Information Officer refused to disclose the details, asserting that there was no public interest in sharing the information and that doing so could potentially jeopardize the safety of judges. "The information sought is also exempted from disclosure as the disclosure of the same would endanger the life or physical safety of judges and officials of the High Court," the response reads. The complainant raised an objection on the maintainability of the pre-arrest bail application on the grounds that a person who is already in custody is not entitled to seek relief through pre-arrest bail for other crimes registered against him. The application was filed by Zoru Bhathena, an activist based in the city, who sought information regarding the structural audits. He had filed the application for the purpose of filing a writ petition related to the 140-year-old Malabar Hill Reservoir. The BMC had proposed the reconstruction of the reservoir due to its age, and Bhathena filed the RTI application to obtain details about the high court building, which is older than the reservoir, in order to substantiate his claim.
11. [Contraband] The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man in an NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) case after finding that the contraband had been weighed along with the plastic bag in which it was discovered. A single-judge bench of the high court comprising Justice MS Karnik was hearing a bail application filed by a man who had been charged under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On May 4, 2022, while one of the police units was on patrolling duty, they observed the applicant's movements to be suspicious. Subsequently, the police arrested the applicant after discovering 52 grams of contraband Mephedrone, which constitutes a commercial quantity. However, the high court noted that the applicant was found in possession of a quantity that was 2 grams more than the commercial quantity specified under the act. Additionally, it was observed that the contraband was weighed along with the plastic bag.
Bench: Justice MS Karnik.
Case title: Imitiyaz Sattar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
