The Court directed the respondents to release the applicant on parole upon production of a surety as per a prior order, dismissing his grievance regarding an insistence on cash deposit.
The respondents directed to release the applicant upon the production of a surety as per the order dated 5-2-2004.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 203 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6 OF 2004
Kailesh Bhagat, Central Jail, AguadaGoa. ... Applicant
versus
State of Goa and others. ... Respondents
Mrs. A. Desai, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.
CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J.
DATE : 7TH DECEMBER, 2005.
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mrs. A. Desai, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicant and Mrs. W. Coutinho, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2
3
N. A. BRITTO, J.
RD
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant can be released on parole without depositing cash security as mandated by the previous order.
Whether the Inspector General of Prisons correctly demanded cash security despite the prior direction for a personal bond and surety.
Kailesh Bhagat
State of Goa
N. A. Britto
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
