The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench held that set-off for period in custody in respect of another offence is not permitted in law, relying on an Apex Court judgment.
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.
17.2CWP.981.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 981 OF 2016. (Dhanraj Haribhau Meshram .vs. The State of Maharashtra)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Ms. Radha Mishra, Advocate appointed for applicant, Mr. M.K. Pathan, A.P.P. for respondent.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2017.
The petitioner is claiming set off for the period he was in custody in respect of some other offence. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
& another .vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali reported in (2001) 6
SCC 311 , the same would not be permitted in law. Hence, the petition is rejected.
Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant are quantified at Rs.1500/-.
Judge
Judge
J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether set-off can be claimed for period in custody for an offence other than the one for which conviction led to sentence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra & another .vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (2001) 6 SCC 311Referred¶8
State of Maharashtra & another .vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali reported in (2001) 6 SCC 311 · Who else cites this
Dhanraj Haribau Meshram
The State of Maharashtra
B.R. GAVAL
KUM. INDIRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
