Tag: Bombay High Court

  • Inter-faith love: Bombay High Court helps woman facing parents’ opposition

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said neither family nor court can restrict or curtail the freedom of a woman who is a major by age.

    A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and Manish Pitale was hearing a habeas corpus (produce the person) petition filed by a man claiming his 23-year-old girlfriend had been detained by her parents after they learned of their relationship.

    As per the plea, the woman’s parents were opposed to the relationship as the petitioner was of a different religion Acting on an earlier court direction, police produced the woman and her parents in court on Tuesday, and the petitioner, a MBA student, told the court he wished to marry the woman but her parents were curtailing her freedom.

    The court then interacted with the woman who said she was in a relationship with the petitioner for five years and they intended to marry, and that she was a 23-year-old adult.

    The court, while disposing of the petition, said since the woman was a major, she is free to move as per own wish, and directed the police to escort her to the place she desires to go to from court.

  • Consider Varavara Rao’s age, health while making submissions: Bombay HC to NIA

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday said the NIA and the Maharashtra government should consider the age and health condition of poet-activist Varavara Rao, arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, while making submissions on his bail plea.

    A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and Manish Pitale posted Rao’s plea seeking bail on medical grounds for hearing on Thursday.

    Rao, one of the accused in the case being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), was last month admitted to Nanavati Hospital here following the HC’s intervention while hearing a petition filed by his wife, raising concerns over his ill-health.

    Since then, the private hospital has been submitting periodical reports on Rao’s health condition to the HC.

    The Maharashtra government last month agreed to bear the expenses for his treatment at the Nanavati Hospital.

    “The petitioner (Rao) is 88 years’ old. Keep in view his age and health conditions. While making submissions on the bail plea, reflect on his health. We are all human beings,” Justice Shinde said.

    Earlier, Rao had been in and out of the state-run J J Hospital here ever since his arrest in the case in June 2018.

    In July last year, he tested positive for coronavirus following which he was admitted to the Nanavati Hospital, but later discharged and sent back to the Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

    Apart from Rao’s bail plea, the court is also hearing a petition filed by his wife Hemlatha, alleging a breach of his fundamental rights due to his continued incarceration without adequate medical care.

    Rao and some other Left-leaning activists were earlier arrested for alleged links with Maoists following the Elgar Parishad conclave in Maharashtra’s Pune district on December 31, 2017.

  • Pre-arrest bail for Maharashtra journalist accused of stalking, obscenity

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an editor of a weekly Marathi newspaper who is accused of stalking a woman online and sending her obscene messages on social media.

    Justice Sandeep Shinde on Thursday was hearing a petition filed by Pramod Dhumal seeking pre-arrest bail.

    Dhumal, in his plea filed through advocate Aniket Nikam, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR lodged against him by Virar police on June 11, 2020 under section 354D (stalking a woman physically or online) of the Indian Penal Code and under Information Technology Act.

    As per the prosecution, Dhumal sent obscene and vulgar messages from his phone to the Facebook account of the victim, a housewife.

    The victim indicated her disinterest and discomfort over the messages but the accused allegedly continued sending them.

    As per the complaint, the accused also sent links of obscene content to the woman following which she filed a police case.

    Dhumal approached HC after a sessions court refused to grant him anticipatory bail.

    Justice Shinde, in the order, noted that while, prima facie, Dhumal’s complicity in the offence of stalking is evident, there is no evidence to attract the penal provisions of section 67-A of the IT Act.

    The court observed that to attract section 67-A of the IT Act, material shared must be of a nature describing or representing sexual activity in a direct or detailed way.

    “No doubt, images sent and the link on tapping revealed material that tends to excite lust but it was not material containing ‘sexually explicit act’.

    Thus, prima facie, provisions of section 67-A of IT Act are not attracted to the case at hand,” Justice Shinde said in the order.

    The court noted that the accused tried to foster personal interaction with the complainant despite clear indication of disinterest shown by her and continued to send her obscene images.

    “Therefore, prima facie, the applicant’s complicity in the common offence of stalking is evident, which is punishable under section 354D of the IPC.

    However, it is bailable being the first offence,” the court said.

    The court granted Dhumal pre-arrest bail and directed him to appear before the concerned police station once in two weeks till the charges in the case are framed.

    Dhumal’s advocate Nikam said allegations against the accused was that he sent a link of a public group on the Facebook messenger of the complainant which when opened led to a page of obscene material.

    “The link in itself was not obscene and hence the provisions of section 67-A of the IT Act cannot be imposed. The other section imposed on Dhumal (IPC 354D) is bailable,” Nikam had argued.

     

  • How reinstatement of cops affects you, Bombay High Court asks Khwaja Yunus’ mother

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday sought to know how Asiya Begum, the mother of blast suspect Khwaja Yunus who died in police custody, was personally affected by the reinstatement of accused policemen.

    Begum has sought action for contempt of court against Mumbai police commissioner Parambir Singh, claiming that reinstatement of the four policemen was violation of the court’s orders.

    The high court had in April 2004 directed the Maharashtra government to suspend four policemen accused of custodial torture and destruction of evidence, the plea said.

    Assistant police inspector Sachin Vaze and constables Rajendra Tiwari, Sunil Desai and Rajaram Nikam are currently facing trial for the alleged custodial death of Yunus in 2003.

    A division bench led by Justice Nitin Jamdar, on Thursday, however, noted that reinstatement was a service matter.

    “How is the petitioner personally affected by this,” the court said, adjourning the hearing for two weeks.

    In June 2020, a review committee headed by Parambir Singh decided that the four policemen should be taken back in active service pending departmental inquiry and the trial.

    Begum’s petition claimed that no departmental inquiry had been initiated yet.

    Yunus (27) was arrested on December 25, 2002, in connection with a blast in suburban Ghatkopar on December 2 that year.

    In January 2003, police claimed that he escaped when a police vehicle taking him to Aurangabad met with accident.

    But his co-accused alleged that he was beaten up severely in custody which probably caused his death.

  • Contempt notice to Customs officials for defying Bombay High Court order

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has issued a contempt of court notice to three Customs officials for the failure to release a consignment of yellow peas from China despite the court’s orders.

    A division bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Abhay Ahuja was hearing a petition filed by Raj Grow Impext LLP challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) confiscating the consignment.

    It had also filed a contempt of court petition.

    The firm’s lawyer Sujay Kantawala pointed out that on October 15, 2020, the high court had ordered the customs authorities to release the goods.

    The court in its order on Wednesday said that on the face of it, the directions of Customs Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-1 were “totally in contravention to the order of this court”.

    “When the high court had directed release of the goods forthwith, it is beyond comprehension as to how a lower appellate authority can nullify such direction by ordering absolute confiscation of the goods,” the bench said.

    It directed release of the goods immediately.

    It also issued notice to Commissioner (Appeals) Manoj Kedia, deputy commissioner Ram Nath Purohit and assistant commissioner KK Sharma, seeking to know why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

    They are to file replies by January 21.

  • TV ads of items claiming to possess ‘supernatural’ powers banned by Bombay HC

    Express News Service
    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has banned the sale of items that claim to possess miraculous or supernatural powers via television advertisement. 

    The Aurangabad bench of the court, comprising Justice Tanaji Nalawade and Justice Mukund Sewlikar ruled that TV advertisements of such items, would be punishable under the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013.

    The court was  ruling on a petition seeking a ban on such advertisements on TV channels. The petitioner, in his plea stated that he came across advertisements on TV channels for articles like Hanuman Chalisa yantra claiming they possessed special, miraculous properties/qualities. 

    The petetioner citied the advertiser’s claim that the yantra was prepared by Baba Mangalnath, who had achieved Siddhi. The petitioner argued that such advertisements pushed false propaganda and exploited people, who are superstitious by nature.

    The court observed that, “Due to this superstitious approach of the educated and the uneducated persons alike,  they are being exploited by so-called Babas by selling articles by giving them names like Yantra, Ganda etc.”

  • Architect suicide case: Arnab Goswami gets more time to amend petition

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted further time to Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami to amend his petition and place on record the charge sheet filed against him and two others in a 2018 case of abetment of suicide of an interior designer.

    Goswami and the two other accused Feroze Shaikh and Nitish Sarda will have to appear before a magistrate court at Alibaug in neighbouring Raigad district of Maharashtra on Thursday, pursuant to summons issued to them in December 2020.

    On December 16, 2020, the magistrate’s court took cognisance of the charge sheet filed by Alibaug police in the case and directed the three accused to appear before it on January 7 to commit the case to a sessions court.

    As the charges invoked in the case are punishable for more than seven years, the trial in the case will have to be conducted by a sessions court.

    In November last year, Goswami filed a petition in the high court, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by the Alibaug police.

    He later sought to amend his petition so as to challenge the charge sheet filed by the police.

    The same was allowed by the HC in December 2020.

    On Wednesday, advocate Niranjan Mundargi, appearing for Goswami, sought further time to carry out the amendment.

    “The charge sheet is bulky and is in Marathi. We need to translate it to English and hence, we need some more time to do so,” Mundargi said.

    The court accepted it and posted the petition for hearing on February 11.

    Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for accused Nitish Sarda, who has also filed a petition in the HC against the FIR, sought that the court hear his arguments.

    Aggarwal said the accused persons have been asked to appear before the magistrate”s court on Thursday.

    To this, Justice Shinde said, “So appear there. What is going to happen? The trial is not going to start tomorrow.”

    The court posted Sarda”s plea also for hearing on February 11.

    The three accused were arrested by the Alibaug police on November 4, 2020.

    It is the police’s case that architect and interior designer Anvay Naik committed suicide in May 2018 over alleged non-payment of dues by companies of the accused persons.

    Goswami in November last year filed a petition in the HC seeking to quash the FIR, and also sought interim bail.

    The HC on November 9 refused to grant interim bail following which Goswami approached the Supreme Court.

    The SC on November 11 granted interim bail to Goswami.

    The police filed the charge sheet in the case last month. 

     

  • Joined conspirators on Army duty: Malegaon blast accused to Bombay HC

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: Malegaon bomb blast case accused Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit on Wednesday told the Bombay High Court, through his lawyer, that he was collecting intelligence for the Indian Army as part of his duty by attending conspiracy meetings for the 2008 blast.

    The high court was hearing Purohit’s application seeking that all charges against him in the case be dropped.

    Six people were killed and 100 others injured when a bomb strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in Malegaon city in Nashik district of Maharashtra on September 29, 2008.

    Neela Gokhale, the counsel for Purohit, who has been booked under anti-terror laws by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), told a bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik that he had been meeting conspirators and attending secret meetings in a bid to gather information and pass it on to the Army.

    Gokhale submitted that Purohit was merely discharging his duties, and therefore, the NIA should have obtained a prior sanction of the Central government to prosecute him.

    She said the section 197(2) of the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) barred a court from cognisance of any offence that had been committed by any member of the Armed Forces while acting in discharge of his or her duties without previous sanction of the Central government.

    Gokhale cited “documents from the Indian Army, and former Mumbai joint commissioner of Mumbai Police, Himanshu Roy, commending Purohit for the inputs and information he had allegedly shared with them over the years”.

    “I (Prasad Shrikant Purohit) am pointing out from these documents that I was discharging my duty, infiltrating in the groups and reporting to my superiors for protecting national security,” Gokhale said.

    “And for this work, they put me in jail, tortured me, and branded me a terrorist,” the counsel said.

    In September last year, Purohit had filed a pleain the HC seeking that all charges in the case against him be quashed.

    He submitted that the NIA, the prosecuting agency in the case, did not seek prior sanction under the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute him, therefore, the courts couldn’t have taken cognisance of the charges against him.

    The NIA, however, opposed Purohit’s plea.

    In an affidavit filed in the high court in September last year, the NIA had said that in attending the conspiracy meetings, Purohit was not working for the Army and therefore, no sanction under 197 of the CrPc was required for his prosecution.

    Purohit was arrested in the case in 2009.

    According to the NIA, the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Purohit’s co-accused and BJP MP Pragya Thakur.

    The HC will continue hearing the arguments in the case on February 2.

     

  • Bombay High Court order – Right to claim only first wife on person’s money

    Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that according to the law, if a person has two wives and both claim their wealth, only the first wife has the right, but the children born from both marriages will get the money. Justice S. J. This oral comment was made by a bench of Kathavala and Justice Madhav Jamdar. The state government said that a similar decision was given earlier by the Aurangabad bench of the High Court, after which the bench made this remark.

    A bench headed by Justice Kathawala was hearing a petition filed on behalf of the second wife of Suresh Hatankar, assistant sub-inspector of the Maharashtra Railway Police Force. Hatankar died on May 30 from Kovid-19. According to the proposal of the state government, a compensation of 65 lakhs has been promised to the policemen who died of Kovid-19 while on duty, after which two women who claimed to be wife of Hattankar asserted their compensation amount.

    Later, Shraddha, the daughter of Hatankar’s second wife, approached the Bombay High Court, saying that she should get a proportionate share in the compensation amount so that she and her mother could avoid being “hungry and homeless”. State government’s counsel Jyoti Chavan told the bench that the state government will deposit the compensation amount in the court till the High Court decides on who is entitled to compensation.

    Chavan also informed the court about the decision of the Aurangabad bench. After this, the court said, the law says that the second wife cannot get anything. But the daughter born to the second wife and the daughter born to the first wife and the first marriage are entitled to wealth.

    Hatankar’s first wife Shubhada and the couple’s daughter Surabhi also attended the hearing through video conference, claiming that they did not know that Hatankar had a second family. However, Shraddha’s lawyer Prekkar Sharma told the court that Surabhi and Shubhada are aware of Hatankar’s second marriage and have previously contacted Surabhi on Facebook. The court has fixed the hearing on Thursday.

  • 3 Bombay HC judges recuse from case

    Three judges of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court have recused themselves from hearing a petition filed by Advocate Satish Uke alleging that Judge BH Loya, who was presiding over the trial in the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, was “poisoned” with a radioactive isotope.

    Two days after Justice SB Shukre and Justice SM Modak recused from hearing the petition filed by Uke, the same petition came up before the bench of Justice PN Deshmukh and Justice Swapna Joshi on Wednesday, the court stated in its order: “Not before the bench of Justice Swapna Joshi”.

    Earlier on Monday when the petition came up before them for hearing, Justices Shukre and Modak had stated: “Not before us”.

    All the three judges have not assigned reasons for recusing themselves from hearing the Justice Loya death case.

    It is being surmised in the legal circles that Justice Shukre’s decision to recuse himself from hearing the Justice Loya death case might be attributed to the fact that he had spoken to an English national newspaper earlier and stated among other things that there was nothing suspicious behind Judge Loya’s death and that doctors had done their best to save him.

    Secondly, Justice Modak was staying with Judge Loya along with another Judge Shridhar Kulkarni at Ravi Bhavan Guest House in Nagpur’s civil lines area. Judge Loya was staying with them he had gone to Nagpur to attend his colleague’s daughter. However, the reason for Justice Swapna Joshi’s recusal from the case was not immediately known.

    Incidentally, the names of Justices Shukre, Modak and Joshi feature in the reported sequence of events leading up to Loya’s death in Nagpur on  December 1, 2014.

    It may be recalled that Justice Loya (48) had died of a “heart attack” on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter. At that time, Justice Loya was hearing the alleged Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case — in which BJP’s current national president Amit Shah was one of the accused.  Justice Loya’s family had earlier raised several questions about the circumstances leading to Loya’s sudden death. There were also reports in a section of the media raising suspicions  over the cause Judge Loya’s death.

    In his petition before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, Advocate Uke has alleged BJP president Amit Shah, one of the key accused in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case who was discharged later, had met Ratan Kumar Sinha, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, during the latter’s (Shah’s) visit to Nagpur in March 2015 for three days.

    Uke has alleged that all official records regarding this meeting have been wiped out. Uke has also alleged that the meeting between Sinha and Shah, “is an indication that Loya was ultimately poisoned with a radioactive isotope”.

    In his petition, Advocate Uke has made a case for the safe custody of records in the controversial case of Judge Loya’s death.

    Among other things, Uke has also alleged in his petition that his former colleagues, retired district judge Prakash Thombre and advocate Shrikant Khandalkar, had told him that Loya died due to poisoning from a radioactive isotope. Thombre and Khandalkar have died since in allegedly mysterious circumstances.

    Uke has also alleged that before their death, Thombre and Khandalkar had informed him that records at Ravi Bhavan had been manipulated “to shield the real perpetrators of the crime”.

    Uke has also stated in his petition that in the second week of October 2014, Loya had reached out to him through Thombre and Khandalkar saying that he was being “pressured” in the Sohrabuddin “fake encounter” case to give a judgement in favour of Shah. He has stated while he never met Loya, he had spoken to him on video call sometime in October 2014.

    In that purported video call, Loya allegedly told Uke that Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis was pressuring him to give a favourable outcome in the matter. Loya also allegedly told Uke about a certain Shubhanshu Joshi from Nagpur who would pay him the bribe.

    Uke has stated in his petition, Loya had admitted to him that he had already written a draft judgment giving Shah a clean chit.

    Uke stated that he along with Thombre and Khandalkar had travelled to Delhi with draft agreement and met advocate Prashant Bhushan who at that time had felt that there was no sufficient evidence to pursue the matter.