Allowed

The State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna Nagpur v. Raju S/O Chhannulal Birha

Bombay HC9 Feb 2024APPCO/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Life convict sought modification of the confirmation judgment to include set off under Section 428 CrPC for incarceration from 17.11.2015, relying on Bhagirath v. Delhi Administration. The court held he was entitled to set off and directed the judgment be amended accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Judgment modified to add set off under Section 428 CrPC for period in jail from 17.11.2015.

The State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna Nagpur Vs Raju S/O… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 confirmation case application

¶2

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

¶3

C RIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2024 (APPCO) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2023 AND CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 1/2023

¶4

Raju s/o Chhannulal Birha

¶5

..vs..

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Shri Sumit G. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.(appointed.) Shri S.S. Doifode, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶10

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. DATED : 09/02/2024.

¶11

This is an application for speaking to minutes precisely contending that the applicant was in jail during the trial i.e. from 17.11.2015 and thus, considering his long standing incarceration, though he is punished for imprisonment for life however he is entitled for set off in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(the Code). In that regard, modification is sought on behalf of the accused.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P. has conceded the position which has been laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Bhagirath vs. Delhi Administration (1985) 2 SCC 580, wherein the Constitutional Bench has overruled the earlier decision in case of Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana (1982) 3 SCC 1 and held that despite imposition of sentence of life imprisonment, the accused is entitled for set off in terms of Section 428 of the Code.

¶13

2 confirmation case application

¶14

In view of the above, we equally hold that the accused is entitled for set off. We do not see any reason to disrobe the accused from said benefit. Already we have put a rider that the applicant/accused is not entitled for remission for the period of 30 years. Having regard to the said fact and the position of law, we direct that the judgment be modified by adding the following portion in paragraph 93 at the end :

¶15

“The accused is in jail from 17.11.2015 and he is entitled for set off in terms of Section 428 of the Code for the period already undergone”.

¶16

Necessary amendment be carried out accordingly.

¶17

Fees of the appointed Counsel be paid as per Rules.

¶18

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

¶19

Trupti

The State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna Nagpur v. Raju S/O Chhannulal Birha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna Nagpur v. Raju S/O Chhannulal Birha

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

Ashish @ Maddy Virendra Rathod Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Gittikhadan, Nagpur

Brayan Ibrahim Keneath Bastiyan Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur.

Sachin @ Anna Palti Daniel Gabrel Vs State of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Gittikhadan Dist Nagpur

Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli

G. N. Saibaba Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli Maharashtra

Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Others vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Aheri Gadchiroli