Dismissed

Prakash Gyandev Patel and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jun 2021WP/645/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal writ petitions filed by undertrial prisoners seeking quashing of bail rejection orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The bench held that judicial orders cannot be questioned under Article 226 and dismissed the petitions as misconceived, while leaving the petitioners to pursue bail applications in appropriate courts.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petitions with no order as to costs; petitioners allowed to pursue bail applications in appropriate courts.

Prakash Gyandev Patel and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

927crwp643&645o21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.643 OF 2021

¶5

RAJESH YASHWANT MORE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.645 OF 2021

¶10

PRAKASH GYANDEV PATEL AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr.Kulkarni Mukul S. APP for the Respondents/State : Mr.S.G. Karlekar

¶13

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J. &

¶14

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶15

DATE :- 17^th JUNE, 2021

¶16

PER COURT:-

¶17

The petitioners are undertrial prisoners. Although it is alleged by them that the High Powered Committee, constituted in pursuance of the order dated 23^rd March, 2020 of the Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020, carved out categories of offenders who could be favourably considered for grant of interim bail during the pandemic situation and that the petitioners are included in one such category, their applications for bail have been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule by a common order dated 8^th May, 2021. While seeking quashing of

¶18

2 927crwp643&645o21.odt

¶19

such order passed by the Magistrate, the petitioners seek further order on the respondents to release them from prison forthwith.

¶20

The order dated 8^th May, 2021 passed by the Magistrate is a judicial order. Law is well-settled that a judicial order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If any authority is required, one can usefully refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1 (Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another ).

¶21

These writ petitions being wholly misconceived, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Dismissal of these writ petitions shall, however, not preclude the petitioners to pursue their remedy in accordance with law and if the appropriate court is approached by them with applications for bail, such applications shall be considered without being influenced by this order.

¶23

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶24

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

kps

Prakash Gyandev Patel and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Gyandev Patel and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Vajir Shaikh Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahemood Shaikh Subhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohmmadiya Education Societys through Its Secretary Shaikh Abdus Salam Abdul Aziz Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syed Imtiaz Jaleel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hanmant Bhojaji Yelde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Baburao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another