Disposed

Ananda S/O Laxman Chopade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2024WP/3369/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A convicted prisoner sought remission of two years and three months under government resolutions and an expedited decision on his premature release application. The State confirmed the remissions had been granted and that a recommendation for categorisation was pending; the court directed a decision within eight weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Remissions already granted; State to decide premature release categorisation within eight weeks.

Ananda S/O Laxman Chopade vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1/3 11-Wp-3369-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3369 OF 2024

¶5

Ananda S/o Laxman Chopade .. Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra And Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal a/w Ms. Anjali Raut, for the Petitioner. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.

¶7

Mr. B. M. Tadavi, Jailor (Gr-II), Kolhapur Central Prison, is present.

¶8

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 23^rd AUGUST, 2024

¶10

P.C:-

¶11

The Petition filed by the convict Ananda Laxman Chopade, seek the following reliefs :

¶12

“B] By appropriate Writ, direction or orders of like nature to direct the Respondents to give to petitioner remission of 2 years on eve of the Golden Jubilee of India’s Independence as per G.R. dated 06.8.1997 and or,

¶13

C] By appropriate Writ, direction or orders of like

¶14

Chaitanya

¶15

2/3 11-Wp-3369-2024.doc

¶16

nature to direct the Respondents to give to petitioner remission of 3 months on eve of 125^th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar as per G.R.dated 03.6.2017, and, or,

¶17

D] By appropriate Writ, direction or orders of like nature to direct the Respondent no.1 to decide the premature release Application of the Petitioner as per the G.R. dated 02.08.2004, within time frame, and, or to”

¶18

The learned A.P.P. Mr. Haldankar make a categorical statement that both the prayers ‘B’ and ‘C’ have been considered by the State Government and he has been given remission of 2 years and 3 months, which is reflected in his writing (Likhan) as convict No.1122. By computing this period, the total sentence undergone by him including the period of remission, as on date is 18 years 05 months and 09 days.

¶19

In the wake of this, as far as prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ are concerned the Petitioner has already secured the benefit.

¶20

As far as prayer clause ‘D’ is concerned, learned A.P.P. make a specific statement that a recommendation is received to categorize the Petitioner/convict in category 4(B) of the 2010 Guidelines and since this recommendation is forwarded to the State Government, the decision to that effect shall be taken at the earliest and in no case later than eight

¶21

Chaitanya

¶22

3/3 11-Wp-3369-2024.doc

¶23

weeks from today.

¶24

In the wake of the aforesaid order, the Criminal Writ Petition stand disposed off.

¶25

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶26

CHAITANYAASHOK Digitallysigned byCHAITANYAASHOKJADHAV JADHAV Date:2024.08.2714:19:44+0530

¶27

Chaitanya

Ananda S/O Laxman Chopade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda S/O Laxman Chopade v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalyan Bansidharrao Renge vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Siddharth Subramaniam vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manulla M. Kanchwala vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Eversmile Construction Company Private Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Jenti Lacmane Son of Lacmane Vassaramo Alias Lakhman Vashram vs the Deputy Collector Diu U.T. Administrator of Daman and Diu and Ors.

Manoj Changdev Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.