Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and R.I Chagla, JJ., asked State of Maharashtra to file their response on the following:

“how a physically fit persons who is 65 years or above is expected to live a dignified life if he is not allowed to go out and earn his livelihood?”

Petitioner sought quashment of the condition appearing in Government Guidelines dated 30-05-2020 stating that “Any cast/crew members above the age of 65 years will not be allowed at the site.”

Petitioner submitted that he does not have any other source of livelihood and is solely dependent on such jobs in the film studios. Though he is physically fit, he is not allowed to go to the studios and participate in shooting for earning his livelihood.

He additionally submits that if he is prevented from participating in any of the activities during the shootings, he won’t be able to survive with dignity and self respect.

Advocate appearing for the State had informed the Court that the guidelines also provides that when possible, castings should be done remotely via Facetime, Zoom, Skype, etc.

“…actors performing small roles are required to go to the studios and request for work to enable them to have their two meals, and no Producer/Director is going to shoot their role via Facetime, Zoom, Skype etc.”

Bench in view of the above, directed the respondents to interalia file its affidavit explaining how a physically fit persons who is 65 years or above is expected to live a dignified life if he is not allowed to go out and earn his livelihood.

Following are the questions on which the respondents shall set out their response in the affidavit:

Whether any data/reports/statistics were taken into consideration before issuing the impugned Guidelines restraining any cast/crew members above the age of 65 years from attending the studios/shooting sites;

Whether a similar rule is made applicable to individuals who are 65 years and above and are travelling by trains/buses/aircrafts etc.;

Whether a similar rule is made applicable to the employers/staff who are currently attending shops/private offices;

Whether a similar rule is made applicable to the individuals (approximately 30) who are allowed to attend funerals or marriage reception/s etc.

Matter to be listed on 24-07-2020. [Pramod Pandey v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 818 , decided on 21-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of B.A. Patil, J. while hearing a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 allowed anticipatory bail of the petitioner since there was no material against him in the case.

Brief factual background of the matter was that a complaint was filed by one Ravishankar alleging that the petitioner herein had created fake documents and committed offences punishable under the company law. On a complaint filed by Ravishankar, police completed its investigation and filed a report on the basis of which summons were issued to the accused petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said investigation report.

Counsel for the petitioner pleaded that there were no specific allegations against the petitioner and no material against him on record. It was also contended that livelihood of the petitioner was in France and he regularly shuttled between India and France. In such a scenario if the present petition is not allowed, it would adversely affect his livelihood. Further, he was ready to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed on him by the Court and was also ready to offer surety, if released on bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the petition was allowed by Court with a direction that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, subject to execution of a bond of Rs 2 lakh along with other conditions such as that of appearance in court when needed and non-tampering of prosecution evidence. [Sanjeev Rao v. State, Criminal Petition No. 5668 of 2018, decided on 03-10-2018]