Dismissed

Jitendrasingh Nainsingh Gehlot v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Dept. Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC7 Mar 2014WP/68/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court considered a petition by a death sentence convict seeking transfer from Central Prison, Nagpur, to attend proceedings in Jodhpur. The court rejected the transfer request but interfered to allow usage of Video Conferencing facilities available at the prison for the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

[None granted - Petition dismissed based on application of Video Conferencing facility]

Jitendrasingh Nainsingh Gehlot Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/1

¶2

0703cwp68.14.odt

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 68 OF 2014

¶5

(Jitendrasingh Nainsingh Gehlot Vs. The State of Maharasthra & another)

¶6

- - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Shri D. K. Sonone, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S. S. Doifode, APP for respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND C. V. BHADANG, JJ. DATED : 7^th MARCH, 2014

¶9

Heard.

¶10

The petitioner, who has been sentenced with capital punishment, has approached this Court for direction to transfer him from Central Prison, Nagpur to Jodhpur-Rajasthan for attending some proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur.

¶11

The impugned order reveals that since the petitioner is sentenced with capital punishment, the request for producing him before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur has been rejected. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader informed that Video Conferencing facility is available at Central Prison, Nagpur and, if necessary, the same can be availed of.

¶12

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere in the impugned order.

¶13

The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶14

The fees of the learned Counsel appointed to represent the petitioner are quantified at `1,500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only.

¶15

JUDGE JUDGE

¶16

wwl

Jitendrasingh Nainsingh Gehlot v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Dept. Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendrasingh Nainsingh Gehlot v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Dept. Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshsing S/O Durgasing Suryawanshi and 3 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Girad and Another

Lobha S/O Chandu Chavhan and 5 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Pusad, Yavatmal and Another

Ramesh Ramchandra @ Chandrabahn Sabhadinde and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Risod Police Station

Pramila Wd/O Bapu Choudhary and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Home Minister and Ors.

Amin Kha S/O Amanulla Kha (Convict NO.C-2224) Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Divisional Commisioner, Amravati

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Pulgaon Vs Vijay Bhaurao Hukare and 4 Others