Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking quash of a notification dated 31 March 2022 issued by the Home Department, Maharashtra, which purported to introduce draft rules under Section 153 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The State, through its Advocate General, clarified that the …
The State of Maharashtra filed a review application against the High Court's order dated 21.11.2017 that had allowed a writ petition filed by Maheshprasad Dwarkadas Jaiswal and another. The State argued that the court had failed to consider Section 114 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, which …
The applicant, Rushikesh Uttam Patil, was arrested on 17 July 2026 in connection with a large seizure of liquor valued at Rs. four crore from the premises of Hari Om Fiber Pvt. Ltd. The prosecution alleges that Patil owned the premises, permitted a co‑accused to use it, and was to receive proceeds …
The petitioners, two accused convicted under section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, were sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000 each by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed, a sentence later confirmed by the Sessions Court. After surrendering, the second …
The applicant, Srinivasa Rayalu B., filed a criminal application seeking quashment of FIR No. 65/2022 registered under multiple sections of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, alleging that the FIR contains omnibus accusations without naming any accused. He relied on a prior judgment dated 25 June 2025 …
The applicant, Ranjitkumar Mahendra Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case where ten girls were rescued from a prostitution racket; although he is not named in the FIR, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was transferred to his account by the main accused. The Sessions Court had rejected his earlier bail …
The petitioner, Laili Macchindra Guddawat, challenged a preventive detention order dated 30 January 2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Pune, alleging that the authority did not apply its mind and that the alleged offences bore no live link to public order. The State contended that the …
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged prostitution and sexual offences where he was not named in the FIR, though a sum of Rs. 50,000 was transferred to his account by the main accused. The Sessions Court had rejected his bail on the ground of his failure to appear in …
The applicant, Vinod Parasnath Singh, sought bail in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly assaulting an informant and his companion at his dhaba, including beating, belt assault, stick assault, and dousing the victim with petrol. The prosecution …
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences under Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 65(c), (e) and (f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The applicant, a grocery shop …
The petitioner, a pregnant woman, challenged a detention order issued under the Maharashtra (Prevention of Dangerous Activities) Act, 1981, which labeled her a 'bootlegger' and ordered her detention in Kolhapur Central Prison. The court examined the factual basis of the order, noting that the only …
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash FIR No.568/2010, which alleged offences under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 85(1) & (2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The incident occurred on 9 October 2010 when the …
The petitioner, Deepak Rohidas Lohkare, challenged a detention order dated 01/09/2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981. The order was based on alleged bootlegging activities and two in‑camera statements …
The appellant Arjun was detained for twelve months under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act on the ground that his bootlegging activities threatened public peace. The detaining authority relied on six excise cases involving illicit liquor and on vague statements …
