Respondent No.
Thereafter, respondent No.
On 20th November, 2017 the following order was passed by this Court Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41 A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing 11.7.
The decision number to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a companyy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing 11.6.
Signature Not Verified Certain adverse remarks were recorded against respondent Digitally signed by SWETA DHYANI Date 2018.03.20 number 2 Bhaskar Karbhari Gaidwad by the Principal and Head 111413 IST Reason of the Department of the College of Pharmacy where respondent number 2 was employed.
This led to another companyplaint by the respondent number 2 against the petitioner under the said provisions.
The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention 11.5.
Her anticipatory bail application was rejected by the session companyrt but the High Court, vide order dated 23rd November, 2017, granted interim protection against arrest.
The quashing of the said companyplaint has been declined by the High Court.
The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention 11.4.
2 sought sanction for his prosecution under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and for certain other companynected offences.
P.C. and the intervenor received numberice dated 2nd December, 2017 from the Magistrate.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5 th May, 2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.1015 of 2016.
The following further safeguards have been suggested by the companynsel for the intervenor Arrest specifically in companynection with offences under POA Act should only be made with the prior sanction of the Magistrate.
