Dismissed

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

Bombay HC15 Oct 2012WP/475/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order imposing 15 days punishment for late surrender after paragraph parole. The High Court held no illegality existed in the lower order and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Article 226 dismissed. Counsel fees fixed at Rs.1500/-

What the court decided

Shiva @ Shivnarayan Bhondaprasad Keskar, C/4280 Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1510wp475.12.odt

¶2

1/2

¶3

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

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 475 of 2012

¶5

Shiva @ Shivnarayan Bhondaprasad Keskar

¶6

...Versus...

¶7

State of Maharashtra & anr.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶9

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

¶10

Mrs. S.P. Dhotre Advocate (Appointed) for Petitioner. Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP, for Respondents.

¶11

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

¶12

A communication addressed by the petitioner from jail has been registered as criminal writ petition. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Mrs.Dhotre, learned counsel, to represent the petitioner when this petition was listed before us for admission.

¶13

The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India impugns an order passed by the respondents dated 8.11.2010 imposing the punishment of 1 : 5 days on account of late surrender of the petitioner.

¶14

It appears that the petitioner had sought his release on parole and was accordingly released on parole on 15.12.2008. The

¶15

1510wp475.12.odt

¶16

2/2

¶17

petitioner ought to have surrendered on 15.1.2009, however he surrendered on 11.2.2009 and thus had surrendered late by 27 days. The respondents accordingly issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to offer explanation as to why the punishment, which was proposed in the show cause notice, should not be imposed. The petitioner in his reply contended that his mother had expired and his wife was suffering from Typhoid and, therefore, he had surrendered late. The respondents in the impugned order have observed that the petitioner did not submit any document in support of his contentions in the reply.

¶18

We have heard Mrs.Dhote, learned counsel appointed for the petitioner and Mr.Pathan, learned A.P.P. With the assistance of learned counsel for rival parties, we have perused the order impugned in the present writ petition. Upon such perusal, we do not notice any illegality or infirmity in the order justifying our interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

/TA/

Shiva @ Shivnarayan Bhondaprasad Keskar, C/4280 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

Shiva @ Shivnarayan Bhondaprasad Keskar, C/4280 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.

Girdhari Mahaveerprasad Kaithwas, C/1929, Central Prison Amravati,through Her Wife Kanta G Kaithwas 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