Anticipatory Bail was denied to the alleged corrupt Judicial officer by the single-judge bench of Bombay High Court
Archana Deepak Jatkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2021Category: High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification
Nandlal Vs Principal Secretary on 14 Aug 2008
Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly adjudged the petitioner guilty of contempt of the Assembly for avoiding to submit his written explanation under his own signature to its Committee on Privileges and for declining to appear before the Committee for tendering the evidence and resolved that the petitioner be imprisoned in a civil prison for two days. The Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly consequently issued the warrant of commitment on 27-3-2008 which was executed by a Senior Inspector of Police on the very day and on 28-3-2008, on completion of two days’ imprisonment, the petitioner was released from the prison.
Bombay High Court dismissed this Writ Petition by the State Election Commission, Nandlal.
Nandlal Vs Principal Secretary on 14 Aug 2008Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1783393/
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Shri-Nandlal-Versus-The-Principal-Secretary-Maharashtra-Legislative-Assembly-and-Others-2008-08-14
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.