Partly allowed

Bacchi@Ramchandra Sitlaprasad Pandey v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2019WP/3349/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the order rejecting the petitioner's request for death parole suffered from non-application of mind due to reliance on a non-existent association with the Chota Rajan gang. The impugned order was quashed, and the authorities were directed to re-verify antecedents, afford a hearing, and pass fresh orders within two weeks regarding the parole request.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order; directed respondent to pass fresh orders on parole request within two weeks after re-verifying antecedents and affording a hearing.

Bacchi@Ramchandra Sitlaprasad Pandey Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

rsk

5-WP-3349-19.doc

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3349 OF 2019

¶6

Bacchi @ Ramchandra Sitlapras

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr. Harjeet Kaur for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶12

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 26/07/2019.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

. Rejection of parole leave on account of death of petitioner's son appears to be the subject matter of present petition. The disputed question arose as petitioner produced document showing that Vitthalwadi Police Station does not have any record showing petitioner's connection with Chota Rajan gang. We have passed speaking order dated 4/7/2019 in this respect.

¶16

Today it is not in dispute that the petitioner has no association with Chota Rajan gang.

¶17

However, learned APP relies upon affidavit of Sr. Inspector of Vitthalwadi Police Station is on record and Exhibit 'A' with it to show antecedents. It is further submitted that 1991 records demonstrate connection of the petitioner with Dawood gang. This assertion is being denied by the Petitioner. Learned counsel submits that chart at Exhibit “A” is not fully correct. Three matters in which the petitioner was not accused

rsk

5-WP-3349-19.doc

2/2

figure therein along with three matters in which he has been already acquitted.

¶22

We do not wish to look into even this disputed aspect. It is sufficient to note that impugned order dated 16/6/2019 suffers from non application of mind because it looks into non-existent circumstance that is association with Chota Rajan gang. We therefore quash and set aside that order.

¶23

Considering the fact that request is for death parole. we direct Respondent No.2 to pass fresh orders on request of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. To avoid any further complications, we direct authorities to re-verify antecedents and to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if possible through advocate of his choice.

¶24

Order on application for grant of parole shall be passed at the earliest. This order however shall not be cited as precedent. The petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶25

(MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

(B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Bacchi@Ramchandra Sitlaprasad Pandey v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bacchi@Ramchandra Sitlaprasad Pandey v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Sandeep Shamrao Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hamid Rahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramjas Motilal Jaiswar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shahanavaj Yakub Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikumar Ramswami Harijan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shahanavaj Yakub Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra