Dismissed

Rahul S/O Babanrao Bhad v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Dep. of Home Mantralaya Mumbai 32 and Another

Bombay HC13 Oct 2023WP/583/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed a criminal writ petition. The petitioner, a life convict underd for 14 years, sought remission under a government resolution marking Dr. Ambedkar's birth anniversary. The court held the petitioner was not eligible as per the resolution's criteria.

What did the court decide?

Grant of remission for 3 months as per Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 denied; petition dismissed.

Rahul S/O Babanrao Bhad Vs State of Mah. Thr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 15.CRIM.WP.583.2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.583 OF 2023

¶4

Rahul s/o Babanrao Bhad

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶7

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

- - - - Shri Ishant Tambi, Advocate for the petitioner (Appointed) Ms. Tripathi, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶9

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J J. DATED : 13/10/2023.

¶10

RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶11

Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶12

The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and undergoing life imprisonment from 20.01.2021. The petitioner has applied to respondent no.2 Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati for grant of remission in terms of Government Resolution (GR) dated 03.06.2017.

¶13

In exercise of powers conferred under Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has decided to grant remission for the specified period on account of 125^th Birth Anniversary of the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Government Resolution contains a Chart specifying the period of remission as per the term of imprisonment. The petitioner is a life convict, therefore, as per GR, he would be entitled for remission of three

¶14

2 15.CRIM.WP.583.2023

¶15

months provided that he would not fall in the exceptional categories provided under the GR itself.

¶16

The petitioner does not fall in the exceptional six categories carved out but the GR itself is clear enough that the life convict would get the benefit of the GR after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall into the said criteria, therefore, he is not eligible for the benefit of GR dated 03.06.2017

¶17

In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶18

Fees of the appointed Counsel be paid as per Rules.

¶19

(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶20

Trupti

Rahul S/O Babanrao Bhad v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Dep. of Home Mantralaya Mumbai 32 and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul S/O Babanrao Bhad v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Dep. of Home Mantralaya Mumbai 32 and Another

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

Mukund S/O Jagannathrao Borade Vs the State of Mha. Thr. Pso Wardha City Tah. and Dist.Wardha

Ravindra Gulabrao Bhende and Another. Vs State of Maht. Pso, Ramnagar, Dist. Wardha and Another.

Kishor S/O. Madhukarrao Panchgade Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Umred, Dist. Nagpur Gramin and Another.

Amardeep S/O. Nanaji Dhanvijay Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Sonegaon, Nagpur Dist. Nagpur and Others

Tapan S/O Rameshkumar Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., Bajaj Nagar P.S.. Nagpur. and 2 Others.

Ajeet Gunwant Parse Thr. Poa Holder Shubhada W/O. Gunwant Parse (I.E Applicant No. 3) and Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City Nagpur Tah. and Dist. Nagpur and Others