The single judge dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by an escapee serving over 27 years. The court held that his classification was correct and no case for interference existed.
No case made out for interference; petition rejected.
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)-
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.831 OF 2007
[Madya @ Mahadeo Damu Pawar @ Katkari. Vs. State.]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, office : Court’s or Judge’s orders
Memoranda of Coram, :
appearances, Court’s :
orders or directions :
and Registrar’s orders :
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Arfan Sait, Adv. appointed for the
Petitioner.
Mr.M.S.Mhambre, APP, for State.
CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 03, 2007.
P.C.:-
1. Heard.
2. Considering the fact that the
petitioner is escapee he has been
rightly classified under Section 6(a)
of the Guidelines for premature release
of prisoners. The petitioner has
already completed more than 27 years in
jail. In the circumstances, no case is
made out for interference. Petition is
rejected.
[R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.]
-(2)-
[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the classification of an escapee under Section 6(a) of the Guidelines for premature release of prisoners.
Madya @ Mahadeo Damu Pawar @ Katkari
State
R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court