SBL Blast Accused Seeks Anticipatory Bail in Nagpur Court Kedar Panchputre, an accused in the Raulgaon SBL blast, has filed an application for anticipatory bail with the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. The court has issued a notice to the Kalmeshwar Police, directing them to submit their response by March 30. The case came up for hearing before Justice Mahendra Chandwani. Panchputre had previously approached the additional sessions court, which rejected his plea on March 16, citing the severity of the crime. The explosion occurred on March 1 within the factory premises, resulting in the deaths of 25 workers and leaving several others critically injured. Prosecutors allege that the incident was caused by grave violations of safety norms by the company. In his bail application, Panchputre claimed he was on leave at the time of the incident and had no direct involvement in the operations leading to the blast. However, the sessions court noted that as an employee associated with the company, his responsibilities may have included safety or supervisory duties, necessitating a thorough investigation. Advocate Amol Mardikar represented Panchputre, while additional public prosecutor SV Kolhe defended the state. The court has ordered the police to provide their response before the next hearing. The case remains pending further proceedings. The incident has sparked significant legal and public discourse, highlighting the complexities of corporate accountability and individual liability in industrial disasters. The court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail underscores the balance between legal rights and the gravity of the charges. As the case progresses, it will likely draw attention to the broader implications of workplace safety regulations and the legal frameworks governing such tragedies.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #raulgaon_sbl_blast #kedar_panchputre #mahendra_chandwani
Bear Demolition Cost at Poonam Chambers: High Court Orders N Kumar to Bear Expenses The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday directed petitioner N Kumar to bear the cost of demolishing unauthorized constructions at Poonam Chambers. The court ordered that the amount be deposited with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) within two weeks after the submission of a detailed estimate. This directive came during the hearing of a petition filed by N Kumar regarding alleged illegal constructions at Poonam Chambers and Poonam Towers. The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta, who adjourned the hearing until March 30. The court was informed that the NMC had already begun demolition work in compliance with earlier court orders. The bench instructed NMC officials to complete the demolition and provide a detailed estimate of the expenditure to the court and the petitioner. During the proceedings, chartered accountant Abhiruchi Agrawal, representing the petitioner, submitted a progress report on the demolition work. The court recorded the report, which stated that unauthorized structures in the parking area of the building complex had been removed. NMC counsel JB Kasat informed the bench that approximately 80% of the demolition in the parking area had been completed, with the remaining work expected to be finished soon. Kasat also mentioned that the demolition process had been temporarily halted on March 5. The judges noted that the petitioner had previously given a written undertaking to the court to remove the illegal constructions but had failed to comply with that commitment. The bench indicated that the issue of non-compliance would be addressed in a later hearing.#nagpur_bench #n_kumar #poonam_chambers #nmc #anil_pansare
Students Living Beyond 3Km Radius To Also Get RTE Admissions: State The Maharashtra government has informed the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court that students who were unable to secure admission under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, in private unaided schools within a 3-kilometre radius will now be accommodated in schools located beyond that distance. This clarification was submitted to the court during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ashish Fulzele and others, who challenged the implementation of the RTE Act’s admission rules. The communication, issued by the Director of Education (Primary) in Maharashtra, stated that nearly 95% to 97% of eligible students would secure admission in private unaided schools if the 3-kilometre criterion was strictly applied. However, the court noted that this approach conflicts with its earlier order dated March 12, which had directed authorities to remove the distance restriction. The division bench, comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta, emphasized that the RTE Act’s provisions, particularly Section 12(1)(c), require ensuring that at least one private unaided school is accessible within a reasonable distance for every child. The court directed the state government to adhere to its previous ruling and ensure that the distance criterion does not hinder the Act’s purpose. During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel, Dipankar Kamble, apologized for not presenting certain documents earlier, which led to the court imposing a cost of Rs25,000. The court accepted the apology after the amount was deposited. The petitioners also informed the bench that the admission portal had not yet opened, prompting the court to urge authorities to take immediate corrective measures.#maharashtra_government #bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #ashish_fulzele #dipankar_kamble
Property dispute can’t be turned into criminal case: Bombay HC Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that a family property dispute cannot be treated as a criminal case in the absence of evidence of fraud or dishonest intent, quashing ongoing criminal proceedings against a doctor couple from Yavatmal. Justice Pravin Patil dismissed the case pending before a judicial magistrate, stating it stemmed from a civil disagreement among family members rather than a criminal act. A police complaint was filed by the husband’s brother on September 28, 2022, accusing the couple’s mother and other siblings of preparing a false affidavit and fabricating documents to exclude his name from the list of legal heirs of their father. The complaint alleged that the family members had mutated their names in property records, which led to the filing of charges under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to cheating, forgery, and dishonest concealment of property. The court examined the case and noted that the complainant’s father died on January 1, 2014, and that the complainant himself admitted receiving a plot and ₹50,000 from his father before living separately. An application for a legal heir certificate was filed by another brother on July 13, 2020, and the certificate was issued in the names of several family members. Justice Patil observed that the allegations against the petitioners were minimal. The husband’s role was limited to signing an affidavit prepared by his brother, and there were no direct accusations against his wife. The court also noted that the complainant’s name was later added to the property records, and the petitioners had expressed willingness to include him as a legal heir after learning about the dispute.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #doctor_couple #yavatmal #legal_heir_certificate
