A single-judge bench dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking premature release, declaring it infructuous after authorities had already considered the claim. No substantive relief was granted.
null
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.
L
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No.2985/2009
Office Notes, Office Court�s or Judge�s orders
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court�s
orders or directions and
Registrar�s orders.
Mrs Indrayani M. Koparkar for the Petitioner.
Mrs A.S.Pai, A.P.P.
CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :- 8TH APRIL, 2010.
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking his
premature release relying upon the guidelines issued in 1992.
It appears that his request for such release was earlier
considered under 2008 guidelines. Learned A.P.P., on
instructions, submits that the claim of the petitioner has
also been considered by the concerned authorities afresh as
per the guidelines of 1992. Under the guidelines of 1992 the
petitioner falls under category 1 (d) and, therefore, can be
released only after 26 years including remissions. This
decision has not been impugned in the instant petition.
Hence, the petition is disposed of as infructuous.
(A.R.JOSHI,J) (D.B. BHOSALE,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant premature release of the petitioner under 1992 guidelines.
Indrayani M. Koparkar
D.B. BHOSALE
A.R. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court