Disposed¶23

Nilesh Shantaram AJGAONKAR(C-2407) v. Deputy Inspector General Prison (East Region), Nagpur and 1

Bombay HC18 Mar 2025WP/413/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench — Criminal Writ Petition No. 413/2024, decided 18/03/2025 (Nitin W. Sambre and Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:2703-DB). Remission eligibility of a life convict under Rule 24, Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962; authorities directed to decide and communicate order on Rule 23 show-cause notice within eight weeks; no precedent cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to communicate the decision taken on the show-cause notice dated July 12, 2019 within eight weeks; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach afresh if the communicated order is adverse to him. ¶23

Nilesh Shantaram AJGAONKAR(C-2407) Vs Deputy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having completed imprisonment of 17 years, 9 months and 24 days, is entitled to have his conduct after rearrest on July 8, 2019 considered for extension of the benefit of remission under Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The respondents have not passed any order dealing with the show-cause notice dated July 12, 2019, and there is neither any reason nor any material to believe that they have decided the petitioner's claim as prescribed under Rule 24 of the Rules, 1962.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to communicate the decision taken on the show-cause notice dated July 12, 2019 within a period of eight weeks.ratio¶22
It is clarified that it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Court afresh if the order communicated on the show-cause notice is adverse to his interest.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Life convict (S.302/34 IPC, 1998) who absconded for 5797 days after prison leave in 2003, prosecuted under S.224 IPC (Crime No.222/2019) and rearrested on July 8, 2019, sought remission benefit under Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 claiming 17 years, 9 months and 24 days of imprisonment. A show-cause notice under Rule 23 proposing striking his name from the remission register was issued on July 12, 2019; he replied on August 9, 2019, but no order was ever passed. The Division Bench (Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court) held there was no reason or material to believe the claim under Rule 24 had been decided, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to communicate their decision on the show-cause notice within eight weeks, and left the petitioner free to approach afresh if the order is adverse.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:2703-DB

¶2

1 908.wp.413.24

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 413/2024

¶5

Nilesh Shantaram Ajgaonkar (C-2407) Vs.

¶6

Deputy Inspector General Prison (East Region), Nagpur and Anr.

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Ms Ratna Singh, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶11

Ms N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.

¶12

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 18/03/2025.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

On December 1, 1998, the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

¶16

After he was released on prison leave on July 31, 2003, the petitioner absconded resulting in the registration of crime being No.222/2019 punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code and after arresting, he was re-lodged in the prison.

¶17

As a sequel of above, the petitioner remained absconded for a period of 5797 days. Based on above, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner on July 12, 2019 pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 (for short “the Rules, 1962”) as to why the petitioner’s name should not be struck out from the remission register. The petitioner submitted his response on August 9, 2019 to the same, however it appears that till this date, the authorities have not passed any order pursuant to the show-cause notice.

¶18

2 908.wp.413.24

¶19

The petitioner has approached before this Court claiming that he has already completed imprisonment of 17 years, 9 months and 24 days and as such, his conduct post his rearrest on July 8, 2019 be considered to extend the benefit of remission as contemplated under Rule 24 of the Rule referred above.

¶20

The fact remains that till this date, neither the respondents nor the petitioner could assist this Court on the issue of the order being passed on the show-cause notice and explanation tendered by the petitioner as referred above.

¶21

This has led the Court to infer that the respondents till this date have not passed any order dealing with the showcause notice dated July 12, 2019 and as such, there is neither any reason nor any material to believe that the respondents have decided the claim of the petitioner as prescribed under Rule 24 of the Rules, 1962, referred above.

¶22

That being so, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to communicate the decision taken on the above-referred show-cause notice within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶23

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶24

Needless to clarify that it shall be open for the petitioner to approach afresh in case if the order to be communicated is adverse to the interest of the petitioner.

¶25

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶26

RGurnule

Nilesh Shantaram AJGAONKAR(C-2407) v. Deputy Inspector General Prison (East Region), Nagpur and 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Shantaram AJGAONKAR(C-2407) v. Deputy Inspector General Prison (East Region), Nagpur and 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil S/O Ashok Rangari Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Superintendent of Police /Externment Officer, Nagpur Rural

Baba Usman Patel Vs Divisional Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Another

Ashish S/O Ashok Kelwatkar vs the Akola Janata Commercial Co-Op.Bank Ltd.,Nagpur,Thr.Br.Manager/Auth. Officer,R.K. Sharma and Anr.

Ku. Komal Rajendra Gajbhe Vs the S.T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, Thr. Member Secretary and Anr.

Baliram Pandusingh Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Vijay Narayan Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Department of Finance, Mumbai and Others