✦ Bombay High Court · 09 Sep 2008

Haresh Mahadev Kamble v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2008BILAL NAZKI, A A KUMBHAKONI

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. For what has been stated above, no purpose would be served to keep this matter on Board, and the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer (a). The Government shall consider the matter within a period of six weeks. BILAL NAZKI, J.…

Judgment

Mr. N.N. Gavankar i/by Mr. Arfan Sait for the Petitioner Mr. A.S. Gadkari, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI P.C.:- The petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He preferred an application for getting the benefit of the Guidelines framed under Section 433-A for the purpose of an early release. It is submitted that his application was considered under the earlier Guidelines framed in April, 1992. In April 2008, new Guidelines have been framed in terms of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and he prays that his case for premature release be considered under the new Guidelines. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection if a direction is given to the Government to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of the new Guidelines.

2.

For what has been stated above, no purpose would be served to keep this matter on Board, and the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer (a). The Government shall consider the matter within a period of six weeks. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 377, 432.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 09 Sep 2008. The bench was BILAL NAZKI, A A KUMBHAKONI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2008). ← Search more judgments