Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: July 01 - July 07, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 320 - 334]ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 320Ritu Dinesh Maloo v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 321Kartik Vaman Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 322Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil & Ors. v. Chief Minister, State Of Maharashtra & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 323The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Ganesh Gopinath Rane 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 324Pritam Chandulal Oswal v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 325Himalay Manohar Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 326Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 327XYZ v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 328Sunil s/o Late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 329Shekhar Chandrashekhar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 330Vidya Sunil Ahire and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Thane 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 331Dr. Sharadchandra s/o Ganpatrao Wankhede v. Raosaheb S/o. Dadarao Danve and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 332Aradhya Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 333Umesh Radhai Saroj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 334Reports/Judgments"Members Of LGBTQ+ Community Vulnerable Within Jail": Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Trafficking ChildCase Title: ABC v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 320The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man belonging to the LGBTQ+ community booked for trafficking a one year and seven months old child observing that members of the community are vulnerable within prison.Justice Manish Pitale allowed his bail application observing –“This Court is of the opinion that a person belonging to the LGBTQ+ community, who is also HIV positive, can be said to be a person belonging to a category of persons, who are indeed vulnerable, particularly within the four corners of a jail.”Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Raj Thackeray For Abetting Violence And Public Property Damage In 2008Case Title: Ritu Dinesh Maloo v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 321No prudent person will ever drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, said the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court while denying anticipatory bail to a female Human Resource (HR) professional accused of mowing down two young men while driving her Mercedes under the influence of alcohol.Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke noted from the material on record, that the female professional had consumed "rum and vodka" from two different restaurants in the night of February 25, and within 5 minutes, covered a total of 3.8 kilometers distance, indicating that she was rashly driving the vehicle. "A prudent person will not drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The manner in which the applicant has driven the car, which appears from the CCTV Footage, caused death of two persons for which her knowledge can be attributed. The person who sat on steering wheel after consumption of alcohol and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner can be attributed knowledge," the judge said.Mere Filing Of FIR, Ongoing Probe Against Applicant Without Court's Cognizance Not Valid Grounds To Refuse Passport Renewal: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Kartik Vaman Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 322The Bombay High Court observed that merely filing of an FIR or cases under investigation against a person is not a valid ground for refusal of passport renewal when no cognizance has been taken by a court.A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla noted that merely filing an FIR or having cases under investigation does not constitute “pending” criminal proceedings under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. “When we look at the Office Memorandum dated 10th October 2019, it clearly stipulates that merely filing of a FIR and cases under investigation do not come within the purview of the Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967. For a criminal proceeding to be considered as “pending”, it is only when a case is registered before any Court of law and the Court has taken cognizance of the same. This Office Memorandum is certainly binding on the Passport Authorities”, the court observed.Maratha Reservation Challenge Case: Bombay High Court Impleads Backward CommissionCase Title: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil & Ors. v. Chief Minister, State Of Maharashtra & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 323The Bombay High Court issued notice to the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) headed by former judge Justice (retd.) Sunil Shukre, on whose recommendation the Maharashtra government decided to grant 10 per cent reservation to the Maratha Community in public service and education through the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) Act.A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay made the MSBCC a respondent to the bunch of petitions challenging the SEBC Act which grants reservation to the Marathas. "We allow impleadment of the...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: July 01 - July 07, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags