Bombay High Court
Sapna Jain vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 July, 2019
Author: Bharati H. Dangre
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H. Dangre
506 wp 1996, 1997 & 1998.19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1996 of 2019
Sapna Jain ....Petitioner
versus
Union of India and ors. ....Respondents
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 1997 of 2019
Pinkesh Paras Kumar Jain ....Petitioner
versus
Union of India and ors. ....Respondents
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 1998 of 2019
Alpa Jain ....Petitioner
versus
Union of India and ors. ....Respondents
Mr.Abhishek A. Rastogi along with Mr. A. A. Shah i/b. Khaitan and
Co.,advocates for the petitioners.
Ms. Sangita Shinde, APP for the State.
Mr. Jitendra Brijbhushan Mishra, advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
DATE : 8th JULY, 2019. P. C. :
These petitions were placed for admission before this Court on 11th April, 2019. On that day, after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, we issued notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and we also noted the issue raised in the petition is sub judice in several other petitions pending in this Court and, accordingly, directed the respondents Shubhada S Kadam 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 22:23:00 ::: 506 wp 1996, 1997 & 1998.19.doc not to take coercive action against the petitioners till next date of hearing. The petitions were adjourned to 18th April, 2019. Thereafter, the ad- interim relief was continued from time to time. Today, the above petitions are placed for continuation of the ad-interim relief.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the continuation of the ad-interim relief relying upon the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 29th May, 2019 in SLP (Cr.) 4322 - 4324 of 2019. These SLPs were filed challenging our order dated 11 th April, 2019, referred above.
3. We have perused the said order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted it down that different High Courts of the Country have taken divergent views in the matter and made observation that position in law should be clarified by the Apex Court. The Apex Court had taken a note of our order dated 11 th April, 2019 wherein, we granted protection to the petitioners and specifically observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the same. The Apex Court, however made it clear that the High Courts while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that the Apex Court by its order dated 27 th May, 2019 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.4430 of 2019 had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Telangana High court in similar matter, wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to Shubhada S Kadam 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 22:23:00 ::: 506 wp 1996, 1997 & 1998.19.doc what has been held by the High Court in the present case. The Apex Court listed SLP(Crl.)Nos.4322-4324 of 2019 along with other connected matters before a Bench of three Judges.
4. Since the Apex Court has proposed to decide the issue in question by referring it to the Bench of three Judges, awaiting the decision of Apex Court, we continue the ad-interim relief granted earlier till further orders. Stand over to 26th August, 2019.
5. Liberty to the respondents to move the matters after the decision of the Apex Court in SLP(Crl) Nos.4322-4324 of 2019 and connected matters which are listed before the Bench of three Judges.
[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 22:23:00 :::