Disposed

Mohd. Zubair @ Tarbez @ Jugnu Kasim Shaikh v. the State of Mah. Thr. Principal Secretary (Home) Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC4 Oct 2024WP/626/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convict sought consideration for premature release after completing 19 years of actual imprisonment, relying on the State's 1992 guidelines and Supreme Court precedent. The High Court directed respondents to decide his premature release in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide petitioner's premature release in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the decision to him.

Mohd. Zubair @ Tarbez @ Jugnu Kasim Shaikh Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11115-DB

¶2

1 931 wp 626.24

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 626/2024

¶5

(Mohd. Zubair @ Tarbez @ Jugnu Kasim Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr.)

¶6

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

¶7

- - - - Mr. N.N. Gawankar, Advocate h/f Mr. S. A. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner.

¶8

Mrs. S.S. Jachak, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶9

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 04/10/2024.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

It is petitioner’s grievance that though he has completed 19 years of actual imprisonment, his case was not considered for pre-mature release. According to the petitioner, guidelines dated 11.05.1992 would apply as the date of conviction is material in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhup Singh and Ors. (2008) 17 SCR 1306 . The learned APP has brought the record and on that basis, submitted that petitioner’s case was forwarded for consideration. The Convicting Court has given adverse opinion. According to the learned APP, the petitioner does not deserve for premature release, however yet decision has not been taken.

¶13

2 931 wp 626.24

¶14

Since the petitioner has already completed 19 years of imprisonment, the matter requires earlier adjudication. We direct respondents to take appropriate decision about premature release of the petitioner in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶15

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶16

( MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶17

Gohane

Mohd. Zubair @ Tarbez @ Jugnu Kasim Shaikh v. the State of Mah. Thr. Principal Secretary (Home) Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Zubair @ Tarbez @ Jugnu Kasim Shaikh v. the State of Mah. Thr. Principal Secretary (Home) Mantralaya Mumbai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra S/O Shivaji Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Deulgaon Raja Dist.Buldhana and Another

Vrushabhh @ Vrushikesh @Jabba Umeshrao Wankhede vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Home Dept. (Spl) Mantralaya,Mumbai and Another

Ashok S/O Panjumal Chelani vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Additional Chief Secretary Home Dep. (Spl). and 2 Others

Kishore Yadavrao Ruikar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dattapur Tq.Dhamangaon Railway Dist.Amravati and Another

Krushna S/O. Chandrakant Ghule and 3 Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Malkapur City, Tah. Malkapur Dist. Buldhana and Another.

Dashrath Dharmaji Debur Vs Sepecial Police Inspector General Prison ( East Region), Nagpur and Another