Dismissed

Gagasingh Amarsingh Tak through His Wife Jaya Kaur Gagasing Tak v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Sept 2016WP/3008/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The wife of a convicted person praying for her husband's parole or release. The court held that since an efficacious alternative remedy existed (application to Divisional Commissioner), the High Court was inclined not to interfere, discharging the rule.

What did the court decide?

Rule was discharged. Applicant relegated to the remedy of preferring an application for parole to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division.

Gagasingh Amarsingh Tak through His Wife Jaya… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

wp.3008.2016_5.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3008 OF 2016

¶5

Gagasingh Amarsingh Tak through his wife Jaya Kaur Gagasing Tak

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Mrs.Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mr.Arfan Sait, APP, for Respondent - State

¶11

CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The petitioner Jaya, wife of the convict Gagasingh Amarsingh Tak, has prayed in this petition that parole be granted to her husband or he be released from prison.

¶15

The record shows that the convict Gagasingh Tak has preferred application for parole on 14.12.2015 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was granted by order dated 15.3.2016 and the petitioner was released on parole on 1.4.2016 for a period of 30 days. The convict did not surrender in time and he surrendered on 2.7.2016 i.e., after a delay of 61 days.

¶16

1 / 2

¶17

wp.3008.2016_5.doc

¶18

The wife of the convict has preferred the present petition on 9.9.2016 that her husband be released on parole or he be released from prison. As far as the second prayer is concerned, the appeal of the convict i.e., Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2015, is pending before the learned Single Judge for final hearing. Till the said appeal is decided, no decision can be taken in relation to the release of the petitioner from prison. However, as far as the release on parole is concerned, the proper course is to make an application to the concerned authorities for parole. When there is an alternate and efficacious remedy available, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere. The convict is relegated to the remedy of preferring an application for parole to the concerned authority i.e., Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division.

¶19

In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

¶20

Office to communicate this order to the convict who is in Nashik road Central Prison.

¶21

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶22

2 / 2

Gagasingh Amarsingh Tak through His Wife Jaya Kaur Gagasing Tak v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagasingh Amarsingh Tak through His Wife Jaya Kaur Gagasing Tak v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Jagdish Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Sameer Mohd. Juber Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parvez Ahmed @ Guddu Vahid Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ningappa Dhanappa Naikwadi Vs the State of Maharashtra