Narendra Atmaram Deore vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 May, 2020

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is

intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by

order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be

taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such

time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety,

whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and,

therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of

the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the

learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of

the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest

bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected

and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a

period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:45 :::
3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020

submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by

those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than

the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the

applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the

applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution

as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

Vandana Vasant Deore vs Narendra Atmaram Deore Ana Anr on 8 May, 2020

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is

intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by

order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be

taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such

time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety,

whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and,

therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of

the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the

learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of

the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest

bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected

and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a

period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:53:02 :::
3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020

submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by

those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than

the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the

applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the

applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution

as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

Satish Atmaram Deore vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 May, 2020

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is

intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by

order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be

taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such

time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety,

whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and,

therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of

the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the

learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of

the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest

bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected

and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a

period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:40 :::
3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020

submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by

those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than

the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the

applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the

applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution

as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

Vandana Vasant Deore vs Satish Atmaram Deore on 8 May, 2020

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is

intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by

order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be

taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such

time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety,

whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and,

therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of

the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the

learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of

the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest

bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected

and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a

period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:51 :::
3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020

submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by

those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than

the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the

applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the

applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution

as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

Shivappa Nagappa Lade (Dead) Thr … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 May, 2020

2. The present respondents have filed First Appeal No.1909 of

2019 challenging the Judgment and award in land acquisition

proceedings i.e. Land Acquisition Reference No.122 of 2011, decided

by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga on 02-08-

2014. The appeal is admitted and it is pending before this Court for

its turn for final hearing. They have also filed an application for stay

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:49:30 :::
3 CriApln 90-2020

to the execution of the award and a conditional order was passed by

this Court. The appellant therein were directed to deposit the entire

decreetal amount awarded by the Reference Court along with

interest accrued within six weeks from the date of the order i.e. 22-

06-2018. After the amount was deposited by the appellants therein,

the present applicants had filed Application No.7291 of 2019 for

withdrawal of the amount. After hearing the parties, this Court

passed following order : –

Parwati @ Parubai Balu Patil And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 May, 2020

(ii) The applicants to deposit the fine amount in the trial Court

within eight weeks from today;

SQ Pathan 2/3

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 06:03:59 :::
LD.VC.OCR.25.20.doc

(iii) The applicants shall report to the trial Court once in six

months, till the aforesaid appeal is finally heard and decided.

6 The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.

7 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed

by the Senior Private Secretary.

Jalinder Murlidhar Naik And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 May, 2020

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station

as and when called;

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or

attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any

person concerned with the case.

SQ Pathan 3/4

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 06:03:51 :::
Apeal.196.20.doc

8 Stand over to 3rd July 2020.

9 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed

Sheetal Devang Shah vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 May, 2020

1 By the aforesaid interim application and criminal application,

the applicant/petitioner, who appears in-person has made several

grievances as against the Investigating officer-ACP Ms. Asmita Bhosale,

amongst other grievances. In an earlier petition filed by the petitioner i.e.

Writ Petition No. 1135/2019, this Court having considered the allegations

and counter allegations levelled by the petitioner therein i.e. Sheetal Shah,

was of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the petition

i.e. Writ Petition No. 1135/2019 is treated as representation to the

Commissioner of Police and as such directed the Commissioner of Police

to take cognizance of the said writ petition within four weeks from the date

SQ Pathan 1/3
wp.3402.19.doc

of the order. Since multiple reliefs are sought in the petition, in particular,

transfer of investigation of all five FIRs registered with different police

stations, this Court directed that the investigation of all the five FIRs be

assigned to a responsible high ranking officer, not below the rank of A.C.P

and on such officer being designated to investigate, the petitioner was

directed to cooperate with the said investigation. The said order was

passed on 4th June 2019 and was disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

2 The grievance of the applicant/petitioner in both the aforesaid

applications is that there is a threat to her life and to her children and that

the Investigating Officer Ms. Asmita Bhosale and other Officers are not

investigating the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner has made

several allegations of corruption as against some of the officers. According

to her, the said investigation in the five FIRs is not being conducted in a

fair and impartial manner.