Disposed

Muruganantham Muthu Thirumani Nadar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jan 2008WP/1394/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, serving life imprisonment for murder, filed a criminal writ petition claiming eligibility for release after 14 years. The Court noted government guidelines required 24 years of imprisonment for such release. It directed the respondent to re-examine the calculation and permit release if guidelines are met.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to look into the matter again and grant benefit of Government Order 11.5.1992 if guidelines are met.

Muruganantham Muthu Thirumani Nadar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1394 OF 2007

¶5

 Muruganandam s/o. Muthuthirumani Nadar : Petitioner
 V/s.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra : Respondent

¶7

 Ms Rebecca Gonsalves (appointed) for the petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶9

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A.BOBDE,JJ.

¶10

 DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. This petition has come from jail. The petitioner is
 undergoing life imprisonment in a case, being C.R.
 no.221/93. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment
 under section 302 of the I.P.C. His case is that he has
 served more than 14 years and, as such, he was entitled to
 be released.

¶13

 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State in which
 it is stated that there are guidelines issued by the
 Government according to which orders with respect to
 release of prisoners serving life imprisonment are made.
 These guidelines are dated 11.5.1992 which relate to the

¶14

 -: 2 :-

¶15

 subject of premature release of prisoners serving life
 imprisonment after 18.12.1978. It is submitted in the
 counter affidavit that the petitioner’s case comes under
 category no.3(b) and, as such, the petitioner before he is
 prematurely released must have undergone imprisonment of
 24 years with a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment
 and, according to them, till date, he has not undergone 24
 years of imprisonment and only 22 years he has served the
 imprisonment. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
 however, submitted that the period of imprisonment to be
 undergone, including remissions, also envisages 14 years
 actual imprisonment. Though she concedes that the case
 falls within category 3(b) of the guidelines, she submits
 that there has been some mistake committed during
 calculations. In any case, this is a question which the
 respondent may decide and we direct them to look into the
 matter once again and if the petitioner falls within the
 guidelines, he may be given the benefit of the Government
 order 11.5.1992.

¶16

 3. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed
 of.

¶17

 (BILAL NAZKI, J.)

¶18

 -: 3 :-

¶19

 (S.A. BOBDE, J.)

Muruganantham Muthu Thirumani Nadar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muruganantham Muthu Thirumani Nadar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tulshiram Damu Pimple and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad M. Cadri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Shakil Abdul Jamil Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramnikbhai Odhavjibhai Aatha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Jagpati Ram Vs the State of Maharashtra

Himmatlal Chaganlal Vora Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.