The court heard petitions for release by a petitioner who had already completed his sentence and been released upon instructions from the State's Advocate, leading to discharge of the rule. No substantive legal principles were discussed.
Rule discharged as nothing survives since the petitioner has been released.
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.
3b. cri appeals 1146-14 & 3.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1146 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 2918 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 2919 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 2920 OF 2016
Ramu Garib Sahani
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 22, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2
3b. cri appeals 1146-14 & 3.doc
same petitioner. In all these petitions, the petitioner has
prayed that he be released from prison.
has completed his period of imprisonment and he has been released from prison. In this view of the matter, nothing
survives in these petitions, hence, rule is discharged.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 2
Ramu Garib Sahani
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Mridula Bhatar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
