Partly allowed

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. Assistant Commissioner of Police and Pio

Bombay HC19 Dec 2023APPW/149/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Bombay dismissed a criminal writ petition filed for information under the RTI Act, 2005 concerning the petitioner's criminal trial. The court held that since similar grievances were dismissed previously with liberty to seek information in the pending death reference, the same procedure applies to the current request regarding investigation documents.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of; liberty to the petitioner to apply for the documents in the pending death reference.

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

kishor 1/3 8 (19.12.23).docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.149 OF 2019 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3672 OF 2018

¶6

Entesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui Versus State of Maharashtra

¶7

...Appellant

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Shashikant P. Chaudhari appointed by Legal Aid for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S. S. Kaushik, APP

¶11

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 19 DECEMBER 2023.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for Petitioner (Appointed) and the learned APP for Respondent-State.

¶14

The petition is registered as Criminal Writ Petition. However when the present petition came up before this Court on 20 December 2019, following Order came to be passed :-

¶15

P.C.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel (appointed) and learned APP, we find that the information has been denied to the prisoner under Right to Information Act and hence, the present petition has been filed.

¶17

kishor 2/3 8 (19.12.23).docx

¶18

Petitioner therefore, may not be of criminal nature and also may be required to be placed before the learned Single Judge. Office to verify and proceed further accordingly.

¶19

Accordingly petition is circulated before Single Bench taking civil

¶20

petitions.

¶21

Learned APP invited my attention to the Order dated 7 February 2020 passed by the Division Bench in Criminal Application No.148 of 2019 filed in Writ Petition No.4263 of 2018. The Order dated 07 February 2020 reads thus :-

¶22

P.C.:

¶23

Heard learned counsel appointed and learned APP. Learned counsel (appointed) submits that grievance by prisoner is about not furnishing information under Right to Information Act and therefore the matter must be placed before learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶24

Learned APP pointed out that the prisoner is already convicted and sentenced to death.

¶25

Alleged information sought for pertains to merits of the trial and as he is in prison, grievance has been placed before this Court. He further submits that information sought for appears to be a roving effort to delay the proceedings.

¶26

We find that the prisoner has sent letter mentioning it to be writ petition. Learned counsel (appointed) informs that during video conference the prisoner has disclosed that death reference is pending and in it the prisoner is represented by private advocate.

¶27

Prisoner has been sentenced to death on 30/9/2015 in Bombay bomb blast case. He is seeking information which has bearing on proceedings of trial in which he is punished. We therefore find substance in objection being raised by learned APP. We dismiss the application as also the petition with liberty to the prisoner to make demand in pending death reference for its proper evaluation.

¶28

Order be served upon the prisoner in jail.

¶29

Accordingly, proceedings are closed.

¶30

kishor 3/3 8 (19.12.23).docx

¶31

Thus, in respect of similar grievance made by the Petitioner about refusal to supply information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 relating to criminal trial, this Court dismissed the Application with liberty to Petitioner to make demand in pending death reference. In the present petition as well the information sought for by the Petitioner is with regard to documents relating to conduct of investigations of the crime. In my view therefore, the present petition can be disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to apply for the documents in the pending death reference.

¶32

With above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶34

Digitally signed KISHOR by KISHORVISHNU VISHNU KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2023.12.20 02:38:05 +0530

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. Assistant Commissioner of Police and Pio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. Assistant Commissioner of Police and Pio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Johnson Fransis D'Souza Vs Shri Paul Alex Dabre and Ors.

Shri Johnson Fransis D'Souza Vs Shri Paul Alex Dabre and Ors.

Sidel Inida Private Limited Vs Presiding Officer and Anr.

Shri. Balwant Bhagwan Jorvar Vs Committee CHIEF-3 or Sub-Divisional Officer, Madha Sub Division and Ors.

Director Handmade Paper Institute Pune Vs Prashant Raghunath Kulkarni and Ors.

Director Handmade Paper Institute Pune Vs Subhash Nivrutti Pawar and Ors.