Criminal Appeal – Circumstantial Evidence and Last Seen Together Doctrine – Appeals against conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for murder, based on circumstantial evidence and the 'last seen together' doctrine – Appellants challenge the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2010. [Para 1, 5, 19-25]

Evidence – Reliability and Credibility of Witnesses – Discussion on the reliability of witnesses, particularly PW7, who claimed to have seen the deceased last with the appellants – Doubts raised regarding the credibility and circumstances of PW7's testimony. [Para 19-23]

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Medical evidence indicating homicidal death due to asphyxia, strangulation, and head injuries, with the time of death established as 16 hours before post-mortem. [Para 15]

Discovery and Seizure of Evidence – Recovery of deceased's belongings and other articles at the instance of appellants – The credibility of discoveries under scrutiny, given the articles were recovered from places accessible to all and the inconclusive reports of the Chemical Analyzer. [Para 26]

Acquittal of Co-Accused – The State's and PW1's applications for leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused dismissed, as the prosecution failed to establish charges against them. [Para 31]

Decision – High Court allows the appeals, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants – Appellants acquitted of the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, citing insufficient evidence to conclusively establish their guilt and a failure to form a complete chain of circumstances pointing to their guilt. [Para 32]

Allegations of Sexual Exploitation Under False Promise of Marriage – Applicant accused of establishing physical relations with the victim on the promise of marriage - Victim later married another individual - FIR lodged following applicant's engagement with another woman - Applicant claimed relations were consensual and due to a love affair. [Para 3, 6]

Consent Obtained Under Misconception – Prosecution's argument that the victim's consent was obtained under a false promise of marriage, thereby constituting an offence under Section 375 IPC. [Para 7]

Analysis of Evidence – Court observed that the physical relationship between the applicant and the victim evolved from a consensual love affair and wasn't solely based on the promise of marriage - WhatsApp chats indicated the victim initially refused marriage. [Para 8, 12]

Distinction Between False Promise and Breach of Promise – Supreme Court precedents cited, distinguishing between false promise and non-fulfillment of promise - Lack of evidence that the applicant never intended to marry the victim. [Para 9, 10, 12]

Application of Ch. Bhajan Lal Guidelines – The case fell under guidelines for quashing proceedings where allegations don't constitute an offence and continuation of proceedings is an abuse of the law. [Para 14]

Decision – Impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside - Applicant discharged from all charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC. [Para 16]

Domestic Violence - Petitioner's Allegations Against In-Laws and Marital Harassment – Petitioner Bhawna Grover married to Sh. Nishant Grover, facing harassment from in-laws and respondents who are sister and brother-in-law of petitioner's husband - Allegations of dowry demands, deceit regarding husband's educational qualifications, and continuous harassment - FIR No. 130/2012 registered for offenses under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC [Paras 2-4].

Proceedings and Discharge of Respondents No. 2 and 3 – Chargesheet filed against accused including Respondents No. 2 and 3 - Discharge of Respondents No. 2 and 3 by learned Mahila Court challenged in present petition - Petitioner seeks restoration of witnesses dropped by trial court and further examination of a witness [Paras 4-8].

Arguments on Maintainability and Delay – Respondents argue non-maintainability due to delay of over 900 days in filing the petition against the discharge order dated 17.08.2020 - Petitioner's failure to challenge previous orders noted [Paras 9-10].

Analysis of Trial Court's Orders – High Court finds no illegality in Mahila Court's order dated 17.08.2020 discharging Respondents No. 2 and 3 - Observations on the role of Sessions Court and Mahila Court in framing charges [Paras 11-18].

Dropping of Witnesses and Examination of PW-2 – High Court sets aside order dated 29.03.2023 dropping two prosecution witnesses (CAW Cell) - Directs re-examination of PW-2, Inspector Bharat Bhushan, who had conducted the initial investigation [Paras 19-27].

Conclusion and Directions – Petition disposed of with directions to re-call witnesses for examination - Emphasizes that observations should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case [Paras 28-30].

Petition by CBI for Documents – Writ petition filed by CBI for obtaining certified copies of documents from court records for investigating a case of disproportionate assets – CBI's application initially dismissed by Special Judge [Paras 1-2, 5].

Importance of Authentic Documents – CBI emphasized the necessity of acquiring documents directly from court records for ensuring authenticity in legal proceedings – Ensures unimpeachable source of documentation, mitigating potential prejudice [Para 7].

CBI (Crime) Manual Provisions – Reference to Rule 14.16 (now Rule 9.9) of CBI (Crime) Manual – Importance of photographing/videographing scene of crime/trap/search proceedings in investigations [Para 8].

Investigation Mandate for Disproportionate Assets – CBI's investigation in disproportionate assets cases requires thorough examination of documents as per CBI manual [Paras 9, 10].

Court's Decision – High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Special Judge – Directed the Trial Court to supply documents mentioned in "ANNEXURE-E" and permitted CBI to prepare an investigation copy from the Court Compact Disc [Para 10].

Judicial Review – Mandamus – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Petitioner seeking mandamus for enforcement of earlier High Court order for reinstatement and back wages – Earlier judgment partly allowed reinstatement with modified punishment, not back wages – Petitioner's claim for back wages unsustainable due to limited scope of the petition. [Para 1, 6-7, 16-17]

Employment – Disciplinary Proceedings – Termination of Service – Petitioner's service terminated along with four others for negligence – Labour Court's negative award for petitioner – High Court's modification of punishment and reinstatement with reduced benefits – No entitlement to back wages or service benefits for period out of service. [Para 2-3, 10, 16]

Administrative Law – Implementation of Court Orders – Respondent Corporation's compliance with High Court's order – Reduction in punishment to lower scale and proportionate recovery – Petitioner deemed reinstated and retired, with no back wages or other service benefits during out-of-service period. [Para 6, 8, 16]

High Court – Powers and Limitations – Relief not claimed in pleadings cannot be granted – Petitioner's failure to challenge specific part of order precludes claim for back wages – Court's inability to grant relief beyond the scope of petition and pleadings. [Para 16, 17]

Dismissal – No further relief granted to petitioner due to limitations in the scope of the petition and finality of certain aspects of the order. [Para 17]

Advocate’s Professional Conduct and Negligence - Petitioner, an advocate, challenged his inclusion in the “Caution List” by Indian Banks’ Association after allegations of negligence in providing Search and Title Reports for property loans - Petitioner claimed diligent performance of duties and contested the negligence accusations - Case centered around proper adherence to guidelines for property title verification and loan sanctioning. [Paras 2-4, 8, 10-14]

Guidelines and Responsibilities of Banks - Highlighted the guidelines issued by State Bank of India (SBI) for independent property inspection and obtaining notarized affidavits - Emphasized that responsibilities for verifying property details primarily lay with bank officials, not the panel advocate - Petitioner's inclusion in the “Caution List” deemed inappropriate due to lack of negligence or fraud on his part. [Paras 9-10, 14-15]

Judicial Precedents and Advocate’s Liability - Relied on similar cases (Rajan Shrivallabha Deshpande Vs. Bank of Baroda & Anr., and Mohana Raj Nair Vs. CBI) to argue against the petitioner's negligence and consequent listing - Acknowledged that no criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, further supporting his non-involvement in fraudulent activities. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Petition allowed, directing the removal of the petitioner’s name from the “Caution List” maintained by the Indian Banks’ Association - Court found no sufficient grounds for the petitioner's continued listing, considering the absence of fraud and reasonable adherence to professional duties. [Paras 17-19]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under NDPS Act – Appeal against conviction for possession of 6 kgs of ganja under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine – Appeal dismissal upheld by High Court. [Para 1, 44-46]

Search and Seizure Compliance - Compliance with Sections 50 and 42 of NDPS Act examined – No personal search of appellant, only bag possession searched – Section 50 compliance not applicable for non-personal search – Section 42 compliance not necessary as no information of ganja stored in any building or conveyance. [Para 17-22, 26-28]

Chain of Custody and Sample Analysis – Argument on delay in sending samples and chain of custody – Samples sent promptly and chain of custody established – Chemical analysis confirmed the substance as ganja. [Para 33-34, 42]

Presumptions under NDPS Act – Invoking Section 35 and Section 54 of NDPS Act – Prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of ganja from appellant's possession – Appellant failed to probabalize contrary claims. [Para 39-41]

Conclusion - High Court found no merit in the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment – Directed appellant to surrender and trial court to carry out the sentence. [Para 44-48]

EWS Student Admission Dispute – Amitanjali Tiwari, represented by her mother Anjali Pandey, denied admission in Sovereign School despite eligibility – Case focuses on the school’s compliance with RTE Act for EWS category admissions – Dispute on carrying forward unfilled EWS/DG category vacancies from previous years [Paras 1-2, 8-9, 14-21, 45-48, 51-52, 58, 61-64]

RTE Act Provisions – Sections 3(1), 13(2), 2(c), 2(f), 4, 7, 8(a), 8(c), 12, 15 – Guaranteeing education at state expense for children in EWS category – Obligations of schools and governments outlined [Paras 3-5]

Carry Forward Principle Validated – Division Bench decision in Siddharth International Public School upheld – Principle allows carry forward of unfilled EWS/DG vacancies to subsequent academic year – However, applicable only if actual shortage exists [Paras 32-34, 38-39, 42-43, 62-63]

School’s Compliance with RTE Act – Sovereign School argued compliance in admitting EWS/DG students – DOE’s error in calculating unfilled vacancies for 2023-2024 – DOE’s waiver order for Sovereign School acknowledged [Paras 46-49, 51-53]

Final Decision – Amitanjali to continue in Sovereign School as EWS student for current academic year – DOE directed to ensure her admission in neighborhood school for next year – Court emphasizes protection of student’s interests amid legal and administrative complexities [Paras 58-61, 64]

Bail Application in Multiple Cases – Accused, a Drawing Teacher, alleged to have sexually assaulted minor girl students, filed bail applications in six different cases. [Para 1]

Allegations of Sexual Assault – Accusations of assaulting Vth standard students at Himayathul Islam School by touching their private parts on 12.12.2023. [Para 2]

Opposition to Bail by Public Prosecutor – Based on the nature of allegations, bail applications opposed. [Para 4]

Delay in Complaint and Doubtful Circumstances – Argument of delay in lodging complaint by six days – Doubt over the feasibility of assaulting six girls in a classroom setting – Petitioner in judicial custody since 20.12.2023. [Para 5]

Court Observation – Noted the delay in filing complaints and expressed doubts about the feasibility of the allegations; recognized substantial progress in investigation. [Para 6]

Bail Granted – Court inclined to release the petitioner on bail under strict conditions, including bond execution, reporting to investigating officer, restricted entry to school, non-interference with victims, witnesses, and investigation, surrender of passport, restricted travel, and adherence to law. [Para 6]

Bail Conditions – Detailed conditions set for bail, including financial bonds, regular reporting, geographical restrictions, non-contact with victims and witnesses, passport surrender, and travel limitations. [Para 6(i-viii)]

Violation of Bail Conditions – Provision for cancellation of bail by trial court upon violation of any set conditions. [Para 6(ix)]