News Analysis India

Tag: Bombay High Court

  • ED opposes in Bombay HC plea of Anil Deshmukh’s wife Aarti against attachment of assets

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday opposed in the Bombay High Court a plea filed by former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh’s wife, Aarti, challenging the provisional attachment of assets in a money laundering case.

    The ED, in an affidavit, said the petition was not maintainable as the issues raised in it could be put forward before an adjudicating authority which is seized of the matter pertaining to the attachment of assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

    The affidavit further said the Act provides for statutory mechanisms to raise the issue before the adjudicating authority.

    Further, the adjudicating authority has concluded the hearing and closed the matter for order, said the ED.

    A division bench headed by Justice G S Patel on Monday took the affidavit on record and posted the matter for further hearing on January 19.

    In December 2021, the bench had permitted the adjudicating authority to hear and pass final orders on the provisional attachment of assets belong to Anil Deshmukh and his wife Aarti, but restrained it from taking any coercive action pending hearing of her plea in the HC.

    Aarti Deshmukh, in the petition, had contended that the authority is supposed to include a chairperson and two members, one of whom has to be compulsorily from law background, but this rule is not being followed.

    The authority is a quasi-judicial body established under the PMLA that adjudicates on matters connected with attachment of properties.

    Anil Deshmukh, a senior NCP leader, is currently in jail under judicial custody in the case.

    Earlier last year, the ED had provisionally attached assets worth over Rs 4 crore belonging to Anil Deshmukh (71) and his family.

    The ED had initiated a probe after the Central Bureau of Investigation filed an FIR against Anil Deshmukh following a preliminary inquiry into the allegations of corruption and official misconduct levelled against him by former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh.

    The NCP leader, who resigned from the state cabinet in April 2021, has denied any wrongdoing.

  • ‘How he can be sent to jail amid COVID surge?’ HC extends Varavara Rao’s surrender date

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday extended till February 5, the date of surrender for poet Varavara Rao, an accused in the Elgar Parishad- Maoist links case who is currently on medical bail, before Taloja prison authorities in Maharashtra.

    A bench of Justices SS Shinde and NR Borkar dismissed the National Investigating Agency’s (NIA) request for extending such date of surrender only by a week.

    The bench said in view of the rising cases of coronavirus across the state, it would not be wise to send the 83-year-old poet-activist back to prison.

    Rao, who was lodged in the Taloja prison in Navi Mumbai as an undertrial, was granted temporary medical bail for six months in February 2021 by another bench of the HC that was led by Justice Shinde.

    He was admitted to the private Nanavati Hospital in Mumbai at the time for treatment of multiple ailments.

    His date of surrender was scheduled for September 5, 2021, but Rao filed a new application through advocate R Sathyanarayanan and senior counsel Anand Grover seeking an extension of medical bail.

    The date of Rao’s surrender has been extended since then by the HC on several accounts, including further time sought by the NIA, which is investigating the case, for filing replies to the new application and getting the octogenarian medically examined again, among others.

    The NIA, however, has been opposing extension of Rao’s medical bail, saying his treatment at Nanavati Hospital is now complete and as per doctors there, he does not need continued medical care at the private hospital currently.

    On Friday, NIA counsel Sandesh Patil told the HC that Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh had not been briefed in the matter and sought a week’s time to complete the process.

    He urged the HC to grant the next date of hearing in a week’s time.

    The bench, however, said there was no point posting the matter for hearing next week and extending Rao’s date of surrender only till then, considering the coronavirus pandemic.

    “Mr Patil, there is no point in keeping (the plea for hearing) next week. Experts say third wave (of coronavirus) may last for 50 to 60 days. This time, the police, health workers are testing positive very rapidly. The situation wasn’t as bad the last time. So in such a situation, is it proper to send him (Rao) back to jail?” the judges asked.

    “Of course, we are aware of the seriousness of allegations (against Rao), and the point of law involved. We will hear you (all parties) on the next date on merits,” the bench said.

    Grover then told the HC that considering Rao’s health condition, his old age and chronic ailments, the Telegu poet had also filed a fresh application before the HC seeking “permanent bail on health grounds.”

    “We have also challenged some of the findings and medical report conclusions of Nanavati Hospital,” Grover told the HC.

    He referred to some reports, including a conclusion submitted in the HC by Nanavati Hospital doctors last month stating that Rao’s vital parameters were stable and he did not need further medical care.

    The NIA had cited this particular report to argue earlier that Rao be sent back to prison while the high court continued to hear on merits his applications for further medical bail.

    On Friday, the bench of Justices Shinde and Borkar said it will consider all contentions raised, including those in the new applications filed by Rao, on February 4, the next date of hearing.

    It, accordingly, extended the date of surrender for Rao till February 5.

    The bench also advised lawyers to stay safe and follow COVID-19 safety protocols.

    “This is high time to take full care. The spread is very rapid this time. We are seriously concerned about all stakeholders in the judicial system. Advocates, staff, clerks, their families. Here (in HC) also some of our colleagues have tested positive,” the bench said.

    “But fortunately, in Maharashtra and Mumbai, the central and the state governments, the BMC, local bodies are all doing a wonderful job. We have to respect their work,” it said.

    The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the ‘Elgar Parishad’ conclave, held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the city”s outskirts.

    The Pune police had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists.

    The probe in the case, in which more than a dozen activists and academicians have been named accused, was later transferred to the NIA.

  • Murder bid case: Won’t take coercive action against MLA Nitesh Rane, police tell HC

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Police on Tuesday assured the Bombay High Court that they would not take any coercive action against BJP MLA Nitesh Rane till January 7 in an attempt to murder case registered against him in the state’s Sindhudurg district.

    A single bench of C V Bhadang posted the anticipatory bail application filed by Rane for hearing on January 7 and directed the police to file their affidavit in response to the plea.

    Special public prosecutor Sudeep Pasbola told the court that a preliminary probe has revealed that Rane was allegedly the “mastermind” in the case and that he was evading interrogation.

    Pasbola sought time to file an affidavit following which Rane’s advocate Niteen Pradhan sought interim protection from arrest for the legislator.

    “He (Rane) is being prosecuted only for humiliation. He appeared at the police station concerned on December 24, 2021 and his statement was recorded. Later, he was intimated that he might be arrested following which he sought pre-arrest bail,” Pradhan told the court.

    Pasbola argued that when Rane was questioned on December 24, the police had just begun their probe into the case.

    “However, on December 26, one of his (Rane) associates was arrested who revealed his role in the case. Our investigation has revealed that he (Rane) is the mastermind in the case,” Pasbola claimed.

    The high court then said it would hear both the applicant (Rane) and the police on January 7.

    Pasbola then gave an oral assurance to the court that till the next date of hearing (January 7), the police would not take any coercive action against Rane.

    The court also directed the police to produce before it the case diary.

    Nitesh Rane, the son of Union minister Narayan Rane, in his plea claimed he was falsely implicated in the case and that he was being targeted due to political rivalry.

    A sessions court in Sindhudurg had last week rejected Nitesh Rane’s bail plea following which he moved the HC.

    In his plea, the MLA, who represents the Kankavali constituency in Sindhudurg, claimed the case against him was registered with the sole aim of preventing his participation in the Sindhudurg District Co-operative Bank elections that were held on December 30, 2021.

    An FIR was registered against Nitesh Rane and others at the Kankavali police station last month under Indian Penal Code Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 120(b) (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention).

    The case pertains to the alleged attack on local Shiv Sena activist Santosh Parab during the campaign of the bank elections.

    In a setback to the Shiv Sena, a panel led by Narayan Rane had won the Sindhudurg District Central Cooperative Bank elections.

  • Maharashtra in 2021: Courts stepped in during COVID second wave; Aryan Khan, Anil Deshmukh in limelight

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: As the devastating second wave of COVID-19 hit Maharashtra early this year, the Bombay High Court stepped in to provide relief to harried citizens with a slew of judgements related to oxygen supply, medical aid, hospital beds and vaccinations, while in 2021, the legal landscape was also dominated by cases related to star kid Aryan Khan, politician Anil Deshmukh, police officers Param Bir Singh and Sachin Waze.

    The HC found itself flooded with public interest litigations (PILs) and pleas filed by citizens in the wake of the second wave of the pandemic, and the high court immediately stepped in to set in motion a system adept at tackling the health crisis.

    The high court at all its benches in the state – Mumbai, Nagpur and Aurangabad – passed several directions this year on oxygen supply, stocking up and providing anti-COVID-19 vaccines, timely medical aid, hospital beds and directions to decongest public spaces and prisons.

    The Bombay HC provided proactive judicial relief through its timely orders on streamlining the vaccination process for citizens, prioritising it for the elderly, and vulnerable sections, including the mentally ill and destitute.

    The HC directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to begin door-to -door vaccination against COVID-19 for the elderly and the physically unequipped in the metropolis despite resistance from the Union government in granting a go ahead to the state authorities for the initiative.

    The high court functioned through the summer vacations to preside over all COVID-19-related matters.

    In December, Chief Justice Dipankar Datta said Maharashtra was one of the pioneers in successfully tackling the COVID-19 crisis.

    “Let us not forget about the dark days. We must not let our guards down. We hope the New Year brings in a new beginning and we never see a repeat of April 2021,” CJ Datta had said while referring to the second wave of the pandemic.

    Apart from coronavirus-related matters, the courts across Maharashtra also witnessed several high-profile cases like the arrest of superstar Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan in a drug related offence, arrest of former home minister Anil Deshmukh, criminal cases related to suspended IPS officer Param Bir Singh and arrest of former cop Sachin Waze in the Antilia bomb scare case.

    Businessman Raj Kundra, husband of actor Shilpa Shetty, spent two months in jail after his arrest in a case related to alleged creation and distribution of pornographic films through apps.

    A high court judge, Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, was criticised over a series of judgments that were deemed controversial for their interpretation of what constitutes a sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

    Justice Ganediwala came under the scanner for her judgments that ruled that there has to be ‘skin-to-skin contact with sexual intent’ for an act to be considered as an offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act, and that “holding hands of a minor girl and opening of zip of his pants’ does not fall under the definition of ‘sexual assault’ in the special legislation enacted in 2012.”

    Taking a dim view of these rulings, the Supreme Court Collegium later decided not to recommend Justice Ganediwala’s name as a permanent judge which means she would be demoted back to district judiciary at the end of her additional judgeship in February 2022.

    Actor Shah Rukh Khan’s 23-year-old son Aryan was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on October 3 in the drugs-on-cruise case.

    Aryan Khan, who was accused of illicit drug trafficking, consumption, possession and sale/purchase of drugs, was released on bail by the HC on October 28.

    Justice N W Sambre, while granting bail to Aryan Khan, observed there was no positive evidence to show that the star kid conspired to commit drug-related offences.

    The high court refused to accept the NCB’s argument that there were WhatsApp chats to prove its case.

    The drugs-on-cruise case opened a can of worms with NCB Mumbai zonal director Sameer Wankhede, who was supervising some high-profile drugs-related matters, coming under the lens over allegations of extortion attempt and corruption.

    Maharashtra cabinet minister Nawab Malik levelled serious allegations against Wankhede, whose father later filed a defamation suit against the politician in the HC.

    Actor Kangana Ranaut faced several legal complaints this year.

    Apart from a defamation suit filed by lyricist Javed Akhthar, Ranaut also faced complaints for her social media posts against Sikhs.

    In September, Ranaut appeared before a Mumbai court in connection with the defamation suit filed against her by Akhtar.

    Ranaut claimed she had lost faith in the court as it had indirectly threatened to issue a warrant against her.

    Two other significant matters that dominated the HC proceedings throughout 2021 were the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, and the investigation and litigation that followed in the aftermath of allegations of misconduct and corruption made against former state home minister Anil Deshmukh by ex-Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh.

    The Elgar Parishad case forced the HC to examine a citizen’s fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

    As the lower courts denied bail and other reliefs, including medical aid, a pair of spectacles and a straw sipper to some of the activists and academics arrested in the Elgar Parishad case, the accused moved the HC seeking protection of their rights.

    The high court granted temporary medical bail to ailing poet Varavara Rao, an accused in the Elgar Parishad case, in February on humanitarian grounds.

    A bench led by Justice SS Shinde said if the HC did not grant Rao such bail, it would be “abdicating its duty to protect the principles of human rights.”

    Another accused in the case, Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist Stan Swamy, however, could not get medical bail from the HC.

    He was permitted by the court to be admitted to a private hospital where he died in July.

    In December, the HC granted bail to another accused Sudha Bharadwaj.

    On April 5, a bench led by CJ Datta directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry into the allegations of corruption levelled against Deshmukh.

    Besides the CBI FIR, Deshmukh also faced a probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a case of money laundering.

    This led to a barrage of petitions by the Maharashtra government, Deshmukh, Singh, highlighting the centre-state tussle on the issue, and all seeking reliefs ranging from independent probes, expunging some portions of the CBI’s FIR, protection from arrest, among other things.

    On December 16, the HC dismissed a plea filed by the Maharashtra government alleging bias by the CBI.

    Deshmukh, booked under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), was arrested by the ED in November.

    The NIA filed a chargesheet in a special court against ten persons, including dismissed cop Sachin Waze, in the case related to Antilia bomb scare and killing of Thane businessman Mansukh Hiran.

    Param Bir Singh is facing as many as five extortion cases in Mumbai and Thane.

    The courts concerned issued non-bailable warrants against him for failing to appear before them.

    A court in Mumbai had declared him a proclaimed offender as he was not traceable.

    However, Singh, who had not reported to work since May after his transfer from the post of Mumbai police commissioner appeared before the courts towards the end of November.

    He got the warrants and the proclamation order cancelled.

    The Supreme Court has granted Singh protection from arrest.

    Union Minister Narayan Rane was arrested by the Maharashtra police and faced multiple complaints over his controversial remarks against Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray.

    In November, the HC commuted to life term the death penalty awarded to three convicts in the 2013 Shakti Mills gangrape case in Mumbai.

    The court had then noted that although the offence was “barbaric and heinous”, it cannot be said at the threshold that the convicts deserve only death penalty and nothing less than that.

    “A sentence of death is irrevocable and therefore, the basic principle in sentencing policy would be life imprisonment is the Rule and Death Penalty is an Exception,” the court observed.

  • Elgar case: Eight accused denied default bail by HC seek correction in order

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: Eight activists and academics currently in jail in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, who were denied default bail by the Bombay High Court earlier this month, have approached the HC and on Tuesday they sought a correction in the relevant order.

    The accused persons – Sudhir Dawale, Dr P Varavara Rao, Rona Wilson, Advocate Surendra Gadling, Professor Shoma Sen, Mahesh Raut, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira – have approached the HC claiming its order denying them default bail was based on a “factual error”.

    They filed an application seeking correction and it was taken up for hearing on Tuesday.

    On December 1, a bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar had granted default bail to another accused Sudha Bharadwaj on the ground that the Pune sessions court, that had allowed extension of time to the police for filing a charge-sheet after the mandatory 90 days, did not have the jurisdiction to do so.

    At the time, the bench had rejected the same relief for the eight of Bharadwaj’s co-accused in the case who have now moved the HC for default bail.

    The bench had said these eight persons had not exercised their right to seek default bail in time.

    It had observed that while Bharadwaj had filed a plea before the Pune court seeking default bail as soon as the 90-day period for filing of the charge-sheet got over, these eight had delayed filing of their applications.

    The Elgar Parishad case was earlier with the Pune police and it is now being handled by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

    On Tuesday, however, the eight accused persons told the bench through their counsel R Sathyanarayanan that its judgment denying them default bail was based on a “factual error.”

    They said that Dhawale, Wilson, Gadling, Sen, and Raut had filed default bail pleas before the Pune sessions court on September 26, 2018, after the 90 days period of their arrest got over and the charge-sheet remained to be filed.

    They said they were arrested on July 6, 2018, and the first charge-sheet against them was filed only on November 15, 2018.

    They filed their default bail pleas in time, but the same are still pending hearing before the sessions court, they said.

    Gonsalves, Rao, and Ferriera told the HC they had applied for default bail on November 30, 2018, just four days after Bharadwaj filed her application before the Pune court.

    They told the HC the Pune sessions court had rejected their default bail applications along with Bharadwaj’s similar plea through a common order passed on November 6, 2019.

    It was this November 6 order that the HC bench of Justice Shinde had set aside on December 1 in Bharadwaj’s case, they maintained.

    “The date of arrest of the accused (Gonsalves, Rao, Ferriera and Bharadwaj) being the same and all the accused had preferred application for default and hence are at par.

    The accused (Gonsalves, Rao and Ferriera) have been denied same relief accorded to Sudha Bharadwaj on account of a factual error,” their plea in the HC reads.

    As per law, once the maximum period, that is, 60, 90 or 180 days from arrest, provided for an investigation in a case is over and no charge-sheet is filed, the accused becomes entitled to be released on bail, which is called the default’ bail.

    The HC will hear the matter further on December 23.

    The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the ‘Elgar Parishad’ conclave, held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the city”s outskirts.

    The Pune police had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists.

  • Antilia bomb scare case: NIA moves Bombay HC against special court order granting bail to bookie

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Friday moved the Bombay High Court challenging a special court’s order granting bail to cricket bookie Naresh Gaur, an accused in the Antilia bomb scare case and killing of businessman Mansukh Hiran.

    A special NIA court granted bail to Gaur on November 20, but he continues to be in in jail, as the court stayed its order for a period of 25 days.

    Earlier this week, a single bench of the High Court set aside the stay order, noting that a sessions court judge does not have the power to stay his own order.

    The probe agency, in its appeal, said the present case was a ‘terror crime’ and was committed with an intent to strike terror among people.

    On Friday, the NIA’s advocate Sandesh Patil sought that the division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sarang Kotwal must grant a stay on the single bench’s order so that Gaur can remain in jail.

    Patil informed the court that Gaur has filed an application before the special NIA court seeking permission to submit temporary cash surety instead of bond.

    The application is to be heard on Friday, the lawyer said, adding that pending hearing of the NIA appeal, his (Gaur) release should be stayed.

    Gaur’s advocates Shirish Gupte and Aniket Nikam, however, argued that he (Gaur) has been in jail despite being granted bail on merits.

    “Let him be released. He will surrender if the NIA’s appeal against the bail order is allowed,” Gupte told the court. The bench said it would start hearing the appeal from December 15 on merits.

    Gupte then assured the court that till then they would not press for the special NIA court to hear their application for submission of temporary cash surety.

    The NIA had arrested Gaur in March this year, accusing him of being involved in the Antilia bomb scare case and in the killing of businessman Mansukh Hiran.

    According to the NIA, Gaur had provided SIM cards to the co-accused in the case.

    The agency in its appeal in the High Court claimed that Gaur and the other accused in the case, including dismissed cop Sachin Waze had parked an explosive-laden vehicle outside the Antilia building, residence of industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his wife Nita Ambani, and thereafter killed Hiran, owner of the vehicle, with an intent to strike terror in the section of people residing in the area.

    “The present crime involves the serious and heinous offence of murder which is the culmination of the conspiracy of planting of explosives near Antilia and threat to the Ambani family. This was an act of terror,” the NIA claimed in its appeal.

    The special court had erred in appreciating the prima facie evidence available against Gaur in the case, the appeal stated.

    “The special court has passed an erroneous order and gone into the question of accused Naresh Gaur allegedly not having active knowledge of conspiracy in this case,” it said.

    “Gaur was fully aware that the SIM cards he was providing were to be used for extorting money and to commit criminal offences,” the NIA alleged.

  • Kangana Ranaut moves Bombay High Court seeking to quash FIR over ‘anti-Sikh’ comment

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut has approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against her last month by Mumbai Police following a complaint by a Sikh organization.

    Ranaut portrayed the farmers’ protest on Delhi borders against the controversial farm laws as a Khalistani movement in an Instagram post on November 21, the complainants had alleged.

    Following which, a case for ‘hurting religious sentiments’ was registered against her by police here.

    In her post, the actor had referred to “Khalistani terrorists” and invoked former prime minister late Indira Gandhi who “crushed” them.

    The actor’s petition, filed last month through advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, contended that her post was misconstrued and she had no intention of hurting the Sikh community’s sentiments.

    The post was not against farmers but against a banned organization, and it was within her fundamental right to free speech, the actor, known for making controversial statements, said in the plea.

    The HC should “protect her legitimate rights and liberties by quashing the FIR,” said the petition, which is yet to be listed for hearing.

  • Elgar Parishad case: SC rejects NIA’s plea against HC order granting bail to Sudha Bharadwaj

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the appeal of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the Bombay High Court order granting default bail to lawyer-activist Sudha Bharadwaj in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.

    A bench of justices U U lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi refused to consider the submissions raised by the NIA, saying, “We see no reason to interfere with the high court order”.

    The NIA had moved the top court earlier against the high court’s December 1 order.

    Bharadwaj was arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case in August 2018 under the provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

  • Lawyer tests positive for Covid, Tarun Tejpal case hearing postponed by Goa HC

    By PTI

    PANAJI: The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday postponed the hearing in the Tarun Tejpal case to December 12 after one of this lawyers said a colleague had tested positive for COVID-19.

    Advocate Raunaq Rao, representing Tejpal, told a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and M S Jawalkar that a lawyer briefing senior counsel Amit Desai had tested COVID-19 positive, and requested a postponement, which was granted.

    Tejpal, the former editor in chief of Tehelka magazine, who was accused of sexually assaulting his then woman colleague in the lift of a five-star hotel in Goa in November 2013, was acquitted by a sessions court in May this year.

    The acquittal was challenged in the HC by the Goa government.

  • Bombay HC quashes order that refused to restrain Nawab Malik from tweeting against Wankhedes

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday quashed and set aside the order of a single bench of the HC that had refused to restrain Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik from making public statements against the Narcotics Control Bureau’s (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede and his family.

    A division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav quashed and set aside the order after Malik and Wankhede’s father Dnyandev consented that the single bench order be recalled and Dnyandev’s grievances against the minister, raised through an interim application on his defamation suit filed against Malik, be heard afresh by the HC.

    On November 22, a single bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar held that though Malik’s tweets against Wankhede, particularly those pertaining to allegations of the NCB officer having submitted a false caste certificate to secure the central government job and having accepted illegal gratification while on duty, had stemmed out of malice, the minister couldn’t be completely prohibited from making comments against a public officer.

    Dnyandev then challenged the singe bench order.

    While hearing the appeal last week, a division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav held that Malik’s statements and tweets against Wankhede did seem to be a clear case of malice and logically, he should be restrained from making such comments.

    The bench had also asked if it behoved the minister to make such comments without due verification and why he hadn’t first approached the caste scrutiny committee with a formal complaint against Wankhede? Malik then proposed that the single bench order be recalled.

    His counsel Karl Tamboly told the HC that Malik will consent to quashing of the order, he will file a detailed reply to Dnyandev’s interim application, and he will not make public statements or tweets against the Wankhedes until further hearing.

    He sought that Dnyandev’s application be heard afresh by the single bench.

    On Monday, senior counsel Birendra Saraf, who appeared for Dnyandev, told the division bench that his client had consented to the quashing of the November 22 order.

    “The court can say by consent of parties (quashing of the order),” Saraf said.

    The division bench permitted Malik to file a fresh reply affidavit to Dnyandev’s interim application that seeks, among other things, that until his suit is heard finally, the minister be restrained from making defamatory statements against him and his family.

    Malik will submit his reply by December 9.

    Dnyandev will then file his rejoinder responding to Malik’s affidavit by January 3.

    The single bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar will then hear the interim application afresh and complete the hearing within 13 weeks, the division bench said.

    Until the hearing on the interim application is complete, Malik will not make any public statements or tweets against the Wankhedes, the division bench said.

    “The statement by respondent (Malik on not tweeting or making public statements against the Wankhedes) shall continue pending disposal of final order on the interim application,” the bench led by Justice Kathawalla said.

    Malik has levelled a string of allegations against Sameer Wankhede after he led a drug bust raid on a cruise ship last month following which actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan and some other people were arrested.

    The minister had alleged that Wakhede was born a Muslim, but falsely claimed to belong to a designated scheduled caste to secure his central government job.

    Wankhede has denied the allegations.