Disposed

Ashok Reddy S/O Sathi Reddy v. Distt. Supdt. of Police, Gadchiroli and 2 Oths

Bombay HC30 Nov 2010WP/595/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition challenging non-production of petitioner before courts. Court accepted respondents' explanation citing police constraints and directed future personal attendance ensured or via video conferencing. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioner's personal attendance be ensured at future hearings, utilizing video conferencing if applicable otherwise personally. Dismissed including prayer for Rs. 5,000 compensation.

Ashok Reddy S/O Sathi Reddy Vs Distt… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.595 of 2010

¶4

[Ashok Reddy son of Sathi Reddy Vs. Distt. Supdt. Of
Police, & ors.]

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶6

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Petition received by Post.
Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for respondents.

¶8

 -----

¶9

CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 30th November, 2010.

¶11

1.Petitioner has made a grievance that he
has not been produced before the Courts on the
dates fixed by the Courts, and this amounts to
violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. He prays for a direction:-

¶12

[a]To produce him in the Court
regularly.

¶13

[b] To the Court concerned to take
action by way of contempt.

¶14

[c]To pay Rs.5,000-00 by way of
compensationtowardssaid
failure to produce him.

¶15

2.We had directed the respondents to file
an Affidavit-in-Reply. It has been filed.
Inter alia the detailed explanation, we have

¶16

¶17

noticed from the affidavit the following:-

¶18

[1] On 2^nd June, 2010, and 18^th September, 2010, the petitioner was not produced before the Sessions Court due to police Bandobast and non-availability of adequate police personnel for escort.

¶19

[2] Now, the facility of video conferencing is made available, and petitioner�s presence by way of video conferencing would be arranged on future dates.

¶20

3. On perusal of the Affidavit-in-Reply, we are satisfied with it.

¶21

4.All that we wish to direct is that
though the facility of video conferencing is
available, and as and when personal attendance
of the petitioner may be ordered by the Court or
is required at the time of trial, it must be
ensured.

¶22

5.With this direction, the petition is
disposed of.

¶23

6.Copy of this order be forwarded to the
petitioner.

¶24

JudgeJudge
|Hedau|

¶25

Ashok Reddy S/O Sathi Reddy v. Distt. Supdt. of Police, Gadchiroli and 2 Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Reddy S/O Sathi Reddy v. Distt. Supdt. of Police, Gadchiroli and 2 Oths

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

Suresh Motiram Masram, Convict No. C-5313 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and Anr.

Vinod Jangluji Bhakare, Convict No. C-8021 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and Anr.

Chintaman Parasram Kalamkar, Convict No. C 7428 Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division and Anr.

Madnay @ Karapa Shankar Atram, Convict No. 35 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and Anr.

Convicts Undergoing Sentence in the Nagpur Central Jail Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Anr.

Shivsingh Raisingh Ingle, Convict No. C 558 Vs the D.I.G. Prison (C) (R) Amravati and Anr.