Dismissed

Girdhari Mahaveerprasad Kaithwas, C/1929, Central Prison Amravati,through Her Wife Kanta G Kaithwas v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy, Home Department Mantralaya,Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC15 Oct 2012WP/473/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner sought transfer to an open prison. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was unfit for such transfer due to his history of absconding on three occasions while on furlough or parole, finding no fault with the respondents' decision.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking transfer to open prison was dismissed. Costs quantified at Rs. 1500/-.

Girdhari Mahaveerprasad Kaithwas… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1510wp473.12.odt

¶2

1/2

¶3

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

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 473 of 2012

¶5

Girdhari Mahaveerprasad Kaithwas

¶6

...Versus...

¶7

State of Maharashtra & anr.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directio ns and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Ms. Sonali Saware Advocate (Appointed) for Petitioner. Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, APP, for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : P.V. Hardas & A.P. Bhangale, JJ. DATE : 15.10.2012.

¶11

The wife of the present petitioner had addressed a communication to this Court requesting for transferring of her husband Girdhari to the open prison at Morshi. It appears that the petitioner is undergoing a sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It further appears that the convict has completed 12 years of imprisonment and, therefore, a request is made on his behalf to transfer him to open prison at Morshi. It further appears that the convict has not applied for his transfer.

¶12

Be that as it may. The petitioner impugns the decision of the respondents who have found the convict Girdhari as unfit for transfer to the open prison. It further appears that as per the

¶13

1510wp473.12.odt

¶14

2/2

¶15

respondents, the petitioner had absconded when he had been released on furlough/parole by 1060 days, 15 days and by 6 days. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the respondents have not found the convict Girdhari as fit for transfer to the open prison.

¶16

We have examined the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents and in the light of the fact that the petitioner had absconded on three occasions, we cannot fault with the respondents for declaring the convict Girdhari as unfit for transfer to open prison.

¶17

We, accordingly, dismiss this petition. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.1500/-.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

/TA/

Girdhari Mahaveerprasad Kaithwas, C/1929, Central Prison Amravati,through Her Wife Kanta G Kaithwas v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy, Home Department Mantralaya,Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhari Mahaveerprasad Kaithwas, C/1929, Central Prison Amravati,through Her Wife Kanta G Kaithwas v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy, Home Department Mantralaya,Mumbai and Another

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

Smt. Anjana Dayaram Dhakate Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Bramhapuri

Anil S/O Babanrao Patwardhan , C/ 4044 Vs State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Pranav Pramod Ashtikar and Another Vs Police Station Officer in Charge Wadi Police Station Amravati Road, Wadi Nagpur and Others

Smt. Pushpa Anilrao Lakde Vs State of Mah. Thr. Police Station and Anr.

Shiva @ Shivnarayan Bhondaprasad Keskar, C/4280 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another

Shyam S/O Vishwanath Rodge Vs Dig Prisons(East) Nagpur and Another