Asiya begum cp

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATION AT BOMBAY
IN ITS CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Dist. Mumbai
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. ________________ Of 2020
FROM ORDER IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1343 Of 2003
In the matter of Article 215 of
the Constitution of India
And
In the matter of Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971;
And
In the matter of order passed
by Respondent no. 2 which is
published in the Police Patrak

2. issued by Mumbai Police
dated 06th
June 2020 whereby
the Respondent no.2 has
revoked the suspension order
of Accused Persons in
Sessions Case No. 728 Of
2009 pending before the
Additional Sessions Court at
Mumbai facing trial for
custodial torture and death;
and
In the matter of wilful and
intentional contempt of
orders dated 7th
April 2004
and 30th
April 2004 passed by
the Hon’ble Bombay High
Court at Mumbai in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 1343 Of
2003;

3. Asiya Begam, ___ yrs )
Inayat Nagar, )
Near Maulana Azad School, )
Parbhani – 431 404. ) …… Petitioner
Vs.
1) Param Bir Singh )
Office of Commissioner Of Police, )
Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Area )
Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 001 )
2) Amitabh Gupta )
Office of Principal Secretary (Special) )
Home Department, Mantralaya Annex )
Mumbai 400 023 )
3) State CID, Nasik Unit )
Through its Superintendent Of Police )
6th Floor ,Konkan Bhavan Building, )
CBD Belapur, Kokan Bhavan, )
Navi Mumbai )
4) Review Committee )
Through its Chairperson )
Commissioner of Police, )
92, Dr Dadabhai Naoroji Rd, )
Police Colony, Dhobi Talao, )
Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Area, )
Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 )
5) State Of Maharashtra )

4. Home Department )
Through its Secretary )
Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai - 23 )…..Respondents
(Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are
contemnors)
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE
JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE.
THE HUMBLE PETITION
OF THE PETITIONER
ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PARTIES:
1. The Petitioner is mother of the deceased Khwaja Yunus
who was tortured and murdered in Police Custody in
January 2003. A trial against the custodial torture and
death of her son is presently going on in Sesssions Case
no. 728 of 2009 before the Sewree Sessions Fast Track
Court at Mumbai against 4 police personnel
(Hereinafter referred to as “the Custodial Death Case”).
The Respondent No.1 is the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai who has issued the contemptuous order dated
5th
June 2020 thereby revoking the suspension of the 4

5. police personnel facing criminal trial in the Custodial
Death Case. The Respondent No.2 is Principal
Secretary (Special), Home Department, State of
Maharashtra. Respondent no. 3 is Superintendent Of
Police, Nasik Unit, State CID which investigated the
Custodial Death Case. Respondent no. 4 is the Review
Committee on whose recommendation the Respondent
no.1 claims to have passed the order of revocation of
suspension of the accused persons in the Custodial
Death Case. Respondent no. 5 is the Home Department
Of State Of Maharashtra represented through its
Additional Chief Secretary. Respondent nos. 1 to 2 (in
the capacity of their official equivalents)were party to
the writ Petition and were directed by the Hon’ble High
Court by its order dated 7th
April 2004 to not only
suspend the 4 police personnel for alleged involvement
in the custodial death of Petitioners’ son but also to
conduct departmental inquiries against them at earliest.
2. Petitioner through this Petition seeks leave of the
Hon’ble Court to bring to its notice the impugned order
passed by Respondent no.1 as published in the Police
Patrak dated 06th
June 2020 revoking the suspension of
4 accused police personnel facing trial in Sessions Case
No. 728 Of 2009 before the Additional Sessions Court
at Mumbai for their involvement in custodial torture and
death of the Petitioner’s son. The Respondent nos. 1 and

6. 2 are contemnors as the suspension and departmental
inquiry of the 4 police personnel was ordered by this
Hon’ble Court by ordered dated 7th
April 2020 in
Criminal Writ Petition no. 1343 Of 2003. The
suspension has been revoked that too without taking any
steps whatsoever for Departmental Inquiry and without
the permission of the Court.
A. ORDER DATED 7TH
APRIL 2004 AND 30TH
APRIL 2004:
3. The Petitioner submits that on 7th
April 2004 in Criminal
Writ Petition no. 1343 Of 2004 which was filed by late
husband of the Petitioner seeking thorough investigation
in the case of custodial death of Yunus the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court directed the State Government and
State CID to treat the statement of Dr. Abdul Mateen
made before the Learned Special Judge under POTA
2002 as a First Information Report (FIR) and register a
case u/s 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code
against all involved police officers including Sachin
Vaze. Further the Hon’ble High Court passed the
following directions to Respondent State:
“till date no disciplinary action has been taken
against the aforesaid PSI Sachin waze and
three absconding police constables. We find
from the record that the investigation
conducted by the state government has been
totally shoddy and improper. Hence we direct

7. the state government to suspend all the afore
said three constables and PSI Sachin Waze,
immediately and start disciplinary inquiry
against them as they have been prima facie
found to be involved in the offence.”
A copy of the order dated 7th
April 2004 is marked and
annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
4. The State Government had filed an application in the
above-mentioned writ petition seeking recall of order
dated 7th
April 2004. The Hon’ble High Court ordered:
“Under these circumstances, we do not
understand as to how the statement of Dr.
Matin would amount to a second FIR, since
the FIR lodged by PSI Sachin Vaze was
regarding a totally different incident on 7th
January, 2003 which is now found to be false
and fictitious. Under these circumstances, we
find no ground whatsoever to recall our earlier
order dated 7th
April, 2004 whereby we had
directed the State CID to treat the statement of
Dr. Mohammad Abdul Matin Abdul Basit
made before the learned Special Judge under
POTA 2002 as FIR and register a separate
case for the offences under Sections 302, 201
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
We clarify that it will be clear for the State

8. CID to invoke other sections of the Indian
Penal Code if found applicable”.
Further in respect of the false case filed by Sachin Vaze
and other 3 police officers against Yunus the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court directed as under:
“Under these circumstances, we direct the State
Government to file a “B” Summary with regard
to the C.R. No. 3 of 2003 since they themselves
have found the same to be a “maliciously false”
complaint. The “B” Summary proceedings shall
be decided strictly in accordance with law.”
A copy of the final order dated 30th
April 2004 is marked
and annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
5. The Petitioner submits that the State
Government did not comply with the order but
challenged the same before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme
rejected the challenge to the order dated 30th
April 2004 by its order dated 9th
August 2004.
6. The Petitioner submits that the order dated 7th
April, 2004 has merged into the order dated
30th
April, 2004 which disposed of the Petition
and the directions to suspend and hold an
enquiry continued to be operative. In fact due
to this the said 4 accused were suspended and
continued to be under suspension till recently.

9. B. CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO ORDER DATED 7TH
APRIL 2004 :
7. The Petitioner submits that on 2nd
December 2002 a bomb
blast took place in Ghatkopar, Mumbai. Four persons
were arrested from different places, namely Dr. Matin,
Muzammil, Zaheer and her son Khwaja Yunus and were
charged under POTA. Khwaja died in police custody and
the other three have been acquitted.
8. The Petitioner submits that Yunus was tortured while in
custody of police and because of which he died in the
police custody sometime in between 6th
January 2003 –
7th
January 2003. His dead body has not been recovered
till date. To cover up Yunus’s death in custody false
case was filed against him on 7th
January 2003 at Parner
Police Station by Sachin Vaze stating that he escaped
from custody of Police while he was being taken to
Aurangabad for investigation by PSI Sachin Vaze and
other 3 officers in Jeep.
9. The Petitioner submits that on 17th
January 2003
Petitioner’s husband namely Sayed Khwaja Ayub filed a
miscellaneous Application being Application no. 5 of
2003 before the designated POTA Court at Mumbai
which had granted police custody of Yunus. He sought
enquiry in the alleged disappearance of Yunus
apprehending custodial death of Yunus.

10. 10.The Petitioner submits that State Government before the
Learned Judge, POTA Court at Mumbai without any
basis supported the version of PSI Sachin Vaze and
others that Yunus had escaped from Custody. The
Learned Judge inquiry into the matter and recorded
evidence of the concerned persons including Police
Officers and Co-Accused in Bomb Blast Case. On 28th
February 2003 the Learned Judge after failure of the
State Government to produce Yunus before it and
doubting version of State suggested his father to move
before the Hon’ble High Court for appropriate relief
including that of CBI investigation. Petitioner craves
leave to refer to and rely upon the order dated 28th
February 2003 as and when produced.
11.The Petitioner submits that Ayub Sayed accordingly
moved the Bombay High Court in writ being Criminal
Writ Petition no. 558 Of 2003 seeking appropriate relief
including that of investigation in custodial death of his
son Yunus. Pending hearing of the Petition on 29th
May
2003 the State Government transferred the case
registered against Yunus at Parner Police Station to
State CID. The Petition was heard on 23rd
June 2003
when the Hon’ble High Court directed Petitioner to first
approach State Government seeking CBI inquiry and
compensation.

11. 12.The Petitioner submits that as no action was taken on
representation of Ayub Sayed by State Government, he
again approached the Hon’ble High Court in its writ
jurisdiction by filing criminal writ petition being Writ
Petition no. 1343 of 2003. In reply State Government
denied the allegations of the Petitioner therein and
sought dismissal of the Writ Petition. Ultimately the
State Government accepted the version of custodial
torture and disappearance of Yunus inquired into by
State CID which was also investigating the case
registered at Parner Police Station.
13.The Petitioner submits that on 3rd
March 2004 PSI the
Hon’ble High Court was informed that one PSI Sachin
Vaze was arrested and 3 other officers who were along
with him were being searched for in respect of custodial
death of Yunus. PSI Vaze was arrested in Parner Police
Station case without registration of separate FIR. PSI
Vaze and other 3 officers namely PC Rajendra Tiwari,
PC Sunil Desai, PC Driver Rajaram Nikam were the
officers who were allegedly taking Yunus on 6th
January
2003 to Aurangabad.
14.The Petitioner submits that despite finding that PSI
Vaze and other 3 officers were responsible for
disappearance of Yunus, no efforts were made to
apprehend the other 3 officers, the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court expressed dissatisfaction over the CID Probe

12. into the disappearance of Yunu from Police Custody and
directed the then Joint Secretary of Home Department to
explain the delay in arresting the 3 officers.
15.The Petitioner submits that after having received
periodic affidavits and reports from investigating
agencies on 7th
April 2004 the Hon’ble Bombay High
Court observed the failure of State Government to file
FIR against PSI Vaze and other 3 officers and directed
the State Government to file FIR on the basis of the
evidence of Dr. Mateen tendered to POTA Court during
preliminary inquiry (where he spoke about witnessing
custodial torture of Khwaja) and further directed to not
only suspend PSI Vaze, PC Rajendra Tiwari, PC Sunil
Desai, and PC Driver Rajaram Nikam but also conduct
disciplinary inquiry against them for the offense (i.e.
custodial torture and disappearance of Yunus).
C. CASE OF THE RESPONDENT STATE BEFORE TRIAL
COURT IN THE CUSTODIAL DEATH CASE OF YUNUS:
16.It is the case of Respondent State that son of the
Petitioner namely Khwaja Yunus (Hereinafter referred
to as Yunus) had returned to India on holiday to visit
his family on 28.11.2002. On 2nd
December 2002 a
bomb blast took place in Ghatkopar, Mumbai. Offence
was registered as C. R. No. 156 Of 2002. Investigation
was carried out by Powai DCB CID Unit 8 (Hereinafter

13. referred to as the Bomb Blast Case). In connection
with the Bomb Blast Case four persons were
subsequently arrested from different places, namely Dr
Mohammed Abdul Mateen, Shaikh Muzammil, Shaikh
Zaheer and Khwaja Yunus were charged under the
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. Yunus was taken in
custody on 25th
December 2002.
17.It is the case of the Respondent State that various police
officers from number of units including Powai Unit and
Ghatkopar CIU DCB CID Unit were involved in the
investigation of the bomb blast case, directly or
indirectly.
18.It is the case of the Respondent State that Yunus was
visited by his brother on 27.12.2002 in Mumbai, who
found him weak and unable to stand. Yunus was in
custody after he was picked up on 25.12.2002.
19.It is the case of the Respondent State that Yunus was
interrogated from 25.12.2002 onwards by officers from
Powai Unit and Ghatkopar Unit. During interrogation
Yunus and other 3 persons arrested for the Bomb Blast
Case were assaulted and tortured for information.
20.It is the case of the Respondent State that on 6th
January
2002, API Sachin Vaze, who was called in to assist in

14. investigation, brought to the notice of his seniors that
during his interrogation, Yunus had given some
information concerning a floppy disk related to
Ghatkopar Bomb Blast was allegedly kept in some office
in Aurangabad. Thereafter, API Sachin Vaze was directed
to take Yunus to Aurangabad for further investigation in
respect of the information received from Yunus. It is the
case of the Respondent State that on 6th
January 2003 API
Sachin Vaze called in PC Rajendra Tiwari, PC Sunil
Desai, PC Driver Rajaram Nikam (Hereinafter referred
to as the Accused Persons) to assist him in the
investigation and to take Yunus to Aurangabad.
21.It is the case of the Respondent State that Yunus was
inhumanly assaulted and tortured while in custody and
due to the assault and torture, Yunus died between 6th
and
7th
January 2003. Yunus’s dead body was also made to
disappear by the police personnel involved in the
custodial torture and death. The dead body has not been
found till date.
22.It is the case of the Respondent State that on 6th
January
2003 at about 22.00hrs the Accused Persons left for
Aurangabad with Yunus. It is the case of the Respondent
State that on 7th
January 2003, in the afternoon, API
Sachin Vaze filed a false and maliciously false complaint
before Parner Police Station which was registered as FIR

15. u/s 224 of Indian Penal Code against Yunus (hereinafter
referred to as the Parner Case) alleging that Yunus
escaped from custody after their vehicle met with an
accident. On the basis of the false complaint FIR was
registered in Parner Police Station against Yunus. It is the
case of the Respondent State that Accused Persons gave
statements in support of their false and maliciously false
story that Yunus had escaped from custody. It is the case
of the Respondent State that Accused Persons made-up
evidence and made a false story that their Jeep fell in to
gorge at about 5am on 7th
January 2003. The claim of the
accused persons that they all (except Yunus) jumped from
the Jeep before it fell in the gorge is established by the
Respondent State before the Competent Court to be false
and maliciously false. It is the case of the Respondent
State which has also been accepted by Courts that the
Accused Persons created false story and fabricated
evidence of the Jeep overturning in gorge and Yunus
escaping from their custody when the accused persons
were unconscious and further that Accused persons
planted evidence like broken hacksaw blades near the
overturned jeep.
23.It is the case of the State Government that on 16th
September 2004 it registered a separate and independent
FIR in custodial torture and custodial death of Khwaja
Yunus by treating statement of Dr. Mateen as complaint.

16. Case was registered as C. R. No. 272 of 2004 at
Ghatkopar Police Station (hereinafter referred to as the
Custodial Death Case).
24.It is the case of the Respondent State that the Parner
Case on the basis of the false complaint by API Sachin
Vaze and supporting statements given by other Accused
Persons were thoroughly investigated by local police as
well as State CID. The Respondent State through the
State CID filed a final report on 26th
July 2007 before
JMFC, Parner stating therein that the complaint and
supporting statements were false and maliciously false
and were made up by Accused Persons to conceal the
custodial death of Yunus either at the hands of Accused
Persons or at the hands of other police officers. The final
report submitted by Respondent State stating the
complaint by API Sachin Vaze and supporting
statement thereto by other Accused Persons to be false
and maliciously false was accepted by the Competent
Court of law in 2004 itself and challenge to the
acceptance of the report by Accused Persons was
rejected by Higher Courts. The order of acceptance of
the summary report has become final.
25.The Petitioner submits that in 2007 charge sheet was
sought to be filed by the State CID against 14 officers
involved in the investigation of the Bomb Blast Case

17. including the Accused Person. Sanction for prosecution
for custodial torture and death of Yunus was sought from
the Respondent State against the 14 officers but was
granted as against the 4 Accused Persons only.
26.State Government accordingly filed the Charge Sheet
through the State CID against the Accused Persons on 5th
November 2008 under various sections of Indian Penal
Code including Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. It is
respectfully submitted that the aforesaid case was
investigation and charge sheet was filed because the
Hon’ble High Court was forced to pass orders from time
to time in a writ petition filed by the Petition being Writ
Petition no. 1075 Of 2005.
27.It is submitted that Sachin Vaze was released on bail on
28th
April 2004. Other 3 accused persons surrendered
after being absconding for months and were released on
bail on 19th
July 2004. They all have been on bail since
then and were under suspension till 5th
June 2020. To the
best of the knowledge of the Petitioner Departmental
Inquiry as against them is still pending and no steps have
been taken for concluding the departmental inquiry.
There are two accounts on which the Accused Persons are
required to face disciplinary action. Firstly, for filing false
and maliciously false case at Parner Police Station
involving serious misconduct and Secondly for custodial

18. torture, death and disappearance of Yunus. As far as
Parner Case is concerned State Government has already
established before the Competent Courts that the Accused
Persons were involved in filing false and maliciously
false complaint and fabrication of evidence.
D. OTHER FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE PETITION AND
STATUS OF THE TRIAL:
27. Petitioner submits that Respondents have further failed
to appreciate that to the best of the information of the
Petitioner somewhere in 2007-08 Sachin Vaze had
submitted his resignation to the Respondent nos. 1 and 3.
He abandoned his service 2008. Further he formed a
company of which he was a director namely Mobi-CID
mainly focusing on mobile application for tracking
activities of the users. He further made a Marathi social
network website like facebook namely
“www.laibhari.com” in respect of which he also holds
trademark. The website was formally launched on 21st
November 2010.
28. Petitioner submits that the writ petition filed in 2005 by
Petitioner being Writ Petition no. 1075 Of 2005 for non-
grant of sanction by Respondent State against other
officers including Praful Bhosale, Rajaram Vahamane,
Hemant Desai and Ashok Khot and also on the point of
compensation was decided by judgement dated 10th
April

19. 2012. The Court held that direction to issue writ of
habeas corpus could not be issued as in law, Yunus was
presumed to be dead. The Court was pleased to direct
Respondent State to give compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-
for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to Khwaja
Yunus. As regards sanction the Court rejected the claim
of the Petitioner that the State Government had not
applied its mind while denying sanction for prosecution
of other officers. The petition was accordingly disposed.
SLP filed by the Petitioner is pending as against the
judgment dated 10th
April 2012 to the extent it held the
denial of sanction for prosecution against other officers to
be proper and notice has been issued.
29. Petitioner further submits that the Learned Judges of the
Trial Court have time and again had opportunity to look
into the charges levelled against the Accused Persons
where the Respondent State has time and again stated that
the case against the Accused Persons is made out under
section 302 of Indian Penal Code and that there is
sufficient and enough evidence to prove the same beyond
reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has time and again on
application filed by Accused Persons held so while
confirming the charges framed under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code and specifically stating that there is
enough evidence to proceed against the Accused Person
for the heinous offence. A copy of the latest such order of

20. the Trial Court being order dated 20th
July 2016 is marked
and annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
30. The Petitioner submits that immediately after a political
party namely Shivsena Party came in power in the State
Of Maharashtra, matter of review of suspension order of
the Accused Persons was taken for consideration and
without any disciplinary inquiry whatsoever and without
leave of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the
Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have revoked the order of
suspension. As per the Police Patrak dated 6th
June 2020
the review committee headed by Respondent no. 1 met on
5th
June 2020 and recommended revocation of suspension
of the accused persons. Respondent no.1 has accordingly
passed the orders of revocation of the suspension order.
Petitioner does not have a copy of the revocation orders
or copy of the decision of the review committee but the
Petitioner is in possession of the Police Patrak dated 6th
June 2020 which refers to the decision of the Review
Committee and revokes the suspension orders. Petitioner
has learned that the Accused Persons have accordingly
reported on duties. This is in complete contravention of
the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court and amounts
to contempt of the orders specially order dated 7th
April
2003 of the Hon’ble High Court. It is surprising as to how
State Government which alleges charges of conspiracy
and murder on officers and has filed charge sheet against

21. them for the offenses, revoke the suspension and reinstate
the accused persons that too without any application of
mind leave alone departmental enquiry. Petitioner
submits that rules of the Petitioner do not permit
revocation of suspension in serious matters pending trial.
A copy of the police patrak dated 6th
June 2020 is marked
and annexed hereto as Exhibit D.
31. The Petitioner submits that after she came to know of the
police patrak she has issued contempt notice to the
Respondent nos. 1 and 2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were
served contempt notice dated 11th
June 2020 by email
dated 12th
June 2020. Further Respondent no.1 was also
served with contempt notice by hand delivery on 12th
June 2020. Copy of the email dated 12th
June 2020 along
with copy of the contempt notice dated 11th
June 2020 are
marked and annexed hereto as Exhibits E and F. No
action whatsoever have been taken pursuant to receipt of
the contempt notice by the Respondents.
32.Petitioner submits that under these
circumstances Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble
Court in its contempt jurisdiction seeking action against
the Respondent nos. 1 to 2 for wilful and intentional
contempt of the order dated 7th
April 2004 in the
aforesaid writ petition. The action of the Respondents in
revoking the suspension is wilful and deliberate and with

22. full knowledge of the fact that they were under
suspension pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s order. The
Respondents are high level officials and would be
knowing that they are acting in contravention of the law
and of the orders of this Hon’ble Court.
33. The Petitioner submits that she has not filed any other
petition in this Hon’ble Court or the Supreme Court of
India regarding the subject matter except as mentioned
above.
34. The Petitioner submits that she has no other efficacious
and effective alternate remedy but to approach this
Hon’ble Court in its contempt jurisdiction.
35. The Petitioner resides in Parbhani, and the Respondents
except Respondent no. 3 which has its office in Nasik,
have their offices in Mumbai, therefore the cause of
action has arisen within the jurisdiction before this
Hon’ble Court and entertain and try this Petition.
36. The Petitioner will rely on documents a list whereof is
annexed hereto.
37. There is no delay or laches in filing this petition. The
order was passed on 7th
April 2004 and contempt was
committed on 6th
June 2020, contempt notice was issued

23. on 12th
June 2020.
38. The Petitioner has affixed the required Court Fee to the
Petition.
39. The Petitioner has not received any Caveat application
from the Respondents till date.
40. The Petitioner therefore prays that:
a. That in exercise of the powers under the
Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 as also in exercise
of the inherent powers vested in this Hon’ble
Court by virtue of the provisions of Article 215 of
the Constitution of India, this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to declare and hold that the
Respondents Nos.1 and 2 or any of them guilty of
Civil Contempt of Court, having wilfully and
intentionally disobeyed the direction in the orders
dated 7th
April 2004 and 30th
April 2004 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in the criminal writ petition
no. 1343 Of 2003 which are marked and annexed
hereinabove as Exhibits A and B.
b. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
sentence the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 or any of
them found guilty of wilful and
intentional disobedience of the direction in the
orders dated 7th
April 2004 and 30th
April 2004

24. passed by this Hon’ble Court in the criminal writ
petition no. 1343 Of 2003 which are marked and
annexed hereinabove as Exhibits A and B for
such term of simple imprisonment and/or with
fine of such amount as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper;
c. That the Respondents be directed by a
mandatory order of this Hon’ble Court to
forthwith withdraw, with retrospective effect, the
order dated 5th
June 2020 to the extend it revokes
the suspension of Accused Persons and further
comply with the direction issued in the orders
dated 7th
April 2004 and 30th
April 2004 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in the criminal writ petition
no. 1343 Of 2003 which are marked and annexed
hereinabove as Exhibits A and B;
d. That pending the hearing and final disposal
of this Petition this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
direct the Respondents to forthwith withdraw,
with retrospective effect, the order dated 5th
June
2020 to the extend it revokes the suspension of
Accused Persons and further to forthwith comply
with the direction issued in the orders dated 7th
April 2004 and 30th
April 2004 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in the criminal writ petition no.
1343 Of 2003 which are marked and annexed
hereinabove as Exhibits A and B;

25. e. That pending the hearing and final disposal
of this Petition this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
direct the Respondent nos. 1 to 2 by a mandatory
order of this Hon’ble Court to comply with the
direction issued in the orders dated 7th
April 2004
and 30th
April 2004 passed by this Hon’ble Court
in the criminal writ petition no. 1343 Of 2003
which are marked and annexed hereinabove
as Exhibits A and B.
f. Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause
(d) and (e);
g. The Respondents be directed to pay
exemplary and compensatory costs of
Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Petitioner together with the
costs of this Petition;
h. for costs of this petition;
i. for such other and further reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice;
Chetan Mali
Advocate For The Petitioners Petitioner

26. VERIFICATION
I, Asiay Begam, aged ___ yrs r/o Inayat Nagar, Near
Maulana Azad School, Parbhani – 431 404, the
Petitioner no.1 herein do hereby state and solemnly
declare that what is stated in the petition in paragraph
no.1 to ___ is based on my personal knowledge and is
true and whatever is stated in the remaining paras is by
way of information and legal submissions which I
believe to be true.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )
Petitioner
On this day of June 2020 Before me,
Advocate

27. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATION AT BOMBAY
IN ITS CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Dist. Mumbai
CONTEMPT PETITION No. __________ OF 2020
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1343 Of 2004
Asiya Begam, ___ yrs )
Inayat Nagar, )
Near Maulana Azad School, )
Parbhani – 431 404. ) …… Petitioner
Vs.
1) Param Bir Singh )
Office of Commissioner Of Police, )
Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Area )
Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 001 )
2) Amitabh Gupta )
Office of Principal Secretary (Special) )
Home Department, Mantralaya Annex )
Mumbai 400 023 )
3) State CID, Nasik Unit )
Through its Superintendent Of Police )
6th Floor ,Konkan Bhavan Building, )
CBD Belapur, Kokan Bhavan, )
Navi Mumbai )
4) Review Committee )
Through its Chairperson )
Commissioner of Police, )
92, Dr Dadabhai Naoroji Rd, )
Police Colony, Dhobi Talao, )
Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Area, )
Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 )
5) State Of Maharashtra )

28. Home Department )
Through its Secretary )
Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai - 23 )…..Respondents
(Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are
contemnors)
VAKALATNAMA
Sir,
I/We the above-named Petitioner/s do hereby appoint
CHETAN MALI, Advocate, High Court, to act, appear, and
plead on my behalf in the above matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I HAVE SET AND
SUBSCRIBED MY HANDS TO THIS WRITING on this
____ day of June 2020 at Mumbai.
ACCEPTED Petitioner
CHETAN MALI,
Advocate for the Petitioner
4th
Floor, Hind Rajasthan Chambers,
Oak Lane, (Allana Marg),
Opp. Mumbai University,
Mumbai- 400 023
Tel 22625021
chetanmalee@gmail.com
I- 2765