Satish Ragde Vs State of Maharashtra on 19 Jan 2021
It seems from the news, there will be an SLP at Supreme Court. Will update if any.
Category: High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification
Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 Apr 2018
Single Judge of Bombay High Court held that, burden of proof shifting to accused in POCSO cases is not absolute and that the Prosecution has to establish their case on foundational
facts, only after which burden of proof shifts onto accused.
From Para 4, truth comes out.
4. It is admitted by the victim that Hindi books were found on her desk by the accused. The victim was suggested that since the Hindi books were found or discovered by the accused, she left the examination hall crying. The defence, obviously, is that in order to escape the consequences of the unfair practice while answering the Hindi paper, the victim falsely implicated the accused.
From Para 6,
Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 Apr 20186. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act must be understood and tested on the anvil of the golden thread which runs through web of the criminal jurisprudence system in this country that an accused is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt. In the factual matrix, at best, the prosecution has succeeded in bringing on record material giving rise to some suspicion. However, it is trite law that suspicion is not a substitute to proof. The gulf between “might have committed” and “must have committed” must be bridged by the prosecution by unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186788466/
Hansa Research Group Pvt Ltd Vs Sachin Vaze and Ors
Bombay High Court directed the Respondents not to harass the petitioners by calling them daily. Respondents agreed to call the petitioners for inquiry twice in a week.
Hansa Research Group Pvt Ltd Vs Sachin Vaze and Ors on 07 Nov 2020Here is the Writ petition:
Hansa Research Group Pvt Ltd Vs Sachin Vaze and OrsArnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 2020
Division Bench of Bombay High Court, while denying interim protection from arrest to Arnab Goswami, held that,
From Para 45,
45. The principle stated therein will equally apply to the exercise of this Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the applications for bail since the petitioner is already in Judicial custody. The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail. Having regard to the alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has to exercise judicial restraint while entertaining application in the nature of seeking regular bail in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
and from Para 70,
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 202070. In our opinion, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to apply for regular bail. At the time of concluding the hearing of Applications, we had made it clear that if the petitioner, if so advised, to apply for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Court, then, in that case, we have directed the concerned Court to decide the said
application within four days from filing of the same.
Here is the Bail application
Arnab Bail ApplicationKovelamudi Kanika Dhillon Vs Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao on 26 Oct 2020
Film maker K Raghavendra Rao’s son Prakash Kovelamudi‘s MCD case disposed of by Bombay High Court, waiving of 6-month cooling period as decided here, as his wife Kanika Dhillon was pregnant with another man.
Kovelamudi Kanika Dhillon Vs Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao on 26 Oct 2020
Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020
Vagua allegations don’t take fake cases far. Bombay HS quashed the fake case of 498A IPC against the relatively.
From Para 14,
14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima facie.
Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020
Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India on 13 Mar 2014
Division Bench of Bombay High Court has passed the following directions to Passport Authorities, regarding renewal of passport, wherein Magistrate has given permission to do so.
6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.
10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate’s court has directed that the passports may be renewed as per the “Rules”.
Here are the directions…
Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India on 13 Mar 201411. Accordingly, we issue the following directions :-
(a) In all cases where the Magistrate’s court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other
than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All
qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for atleast ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants atleast for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the
additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the passport
shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport
of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned.
Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 04 Mar 2020
Another good judgment based on landmark rulings from DB of Bombay High Court as well as Apex Court, on renewal of a Passport for full term of 10 years.
Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 04 Mar 20206. In view of the directions given by this Court in the said judgment, therefore, the Respondents were duty bound to follow the said directions and ought to have renewed thepassport for a period of ten years. It has to be borne in mind that whenever a criminal complaint is pending against an applicant, who wishes to travel abroad, the Magistrate alone has a jurisdiction to impose conditions regarding his right to travel abroad. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the Applicant should not be permitted to travel abroad, he can reject his application. However, when an application is made forrenewal of passport, the Passport Authorities have to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It appears that the Central Government has issued a Notification by exercising a power vested in them under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and in the said Notification, it has been mentioned that the passport can be renewed for a period of one year. There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Notification issued by the Passport Authorities, this Court was pleased to clarify the said ambiguity in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra). The Passport Authorities do not have the right to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad or not and that right is vested in the Magistrate, who can impose condition if an application is made, seeking permission to travel abroad. The Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : 1978 SCR (2) 621)] has held that the right to travel for the purpose of business and service is a part of a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions, which are imposed by the Act and by the Court. In the present case, the Applicant on account of his service as a Flight Person has to travel abroad continuously and there is no possibility of absconding since he has to return back along with the fight. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we direct the Passport Authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years. It is clarified that, however, the Applicant will have to apply to the Magistrate seeking permission to travel abroad. If such an application is made, the Magistrate may impose such conditions as deem ft and proper.”
Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992
Bombay High Court held that, “Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry”
From Para 6,
Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992Dowry in the sense of that expression contemplated by Act 28 of 1961 is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage. In other words it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. Where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence has to be properly understood and thus viewed it is clear that what the appellants wanted was valuable presents to be made to appellant Mahadeo on the occasion of festivals like Deepavali. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the presents are customarily given to sons-in-law on festive occasions and giving of such presents is in no way connected with the wedding or marriage. It is a post-marriage expectation and the expectation and performance thereof once restricted to the affluents and the middle class, has now spread its tentacles to the poor also. The expectation is because of the relationship, but without any nexus to the agreement to marry. Therefore, it does not amount to dowry. Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry. This is clear from the qualifying clause of section 2 in Act 28 of 1961 reproduced above.
Citations: [1993 (3) BomCR 473]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/553393/
