Partly allowed

Dhirendra Gurunarayan Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jun 2019WP/1381/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's application for furlough pending essential response from the State of Uttar Pradesh police. Respondent No. 2 was added as a party with a four-week timeline to respond to communications from the Nasik Road Central Jail. The petition was partly allowed with liberty to approach the court again.

What did the court decide?

Added Respondent No. 2 to reply within four weeks; granted liberty to approach the court again if grievance is not redressed.

Dhirendra Gurunarayan Singh Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

WP 1381-19.doc

¶2

1/2

¶3

Chittewan

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1381 OF 2019

¶6

Dhirendra Gurunarayan Singh … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

Mr. Kartik S. Garg for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND SMT. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 4 JUNE 2019

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. Heard learned Counsel (appointed) and learned APP.

¶13

2 The Applicant-prisoner states that he has become eligible for furlough in the year 2016 and accordingly moved an application there for. That application has not been decided till the date.

¶14

3 Learned APP upon instructions states that the prisoner hails from Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the report was sought from local Police Station, i.e. The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police-Jalaun, District Jalaun, State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). Though till date, about six letters/reminders have been sent, there is no reply to it.

¶15

4 It is apparent that without appropriate response from local Police Station in State of U.P., request of the Petitioner cannot be considered. We, therefore, grant an oral leave made by learned Counsel for the

¶16

2/2

¶17

Chittewan

¶18

WP 1381-19.doc

¶19

Applicant and permit him to implead The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police-Jalaun, Dsit. Jalaun, U.P., as party Respondent No.2. The necessary amendment to be carried out within two days from today.

¶20

5 Instead of keeping the matter pending, we find it appropriate to direct the added respondent to respond to various communications sent to it by Superintendent, Nasik Road Central Jail. The last of such letter is sent on 28/30^th March 2019. The added respondent shall send a suitable rely to it within four weeks after service of copy of this order upon it.

¶21

6 We direct Respondent/State to send copy of this order to added respondent. We also permit the Applicant/Prisoner to do so.

¶22

7 With these directions and with liberty to the Petitioner to approach again, if the grievance is not redressed, we partly allow this petition and disposed it of.

¶23

8 A copy of this order be served upon the prisoner in Nasik Road Central Prison.

¶24

9 Copy of the order is expedited.

¶25

(SMT. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Dhirendra Gurunarayan Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Gurunarayan Singh 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

Dilip Kacharu Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Devidas Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pankaj Nanku Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Idris Nathu Khan @ Sanjay Vs the State of Maharashtra

Randhir@Nikhil Ashok Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Randhir@Nikhil Ashok Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.