Writ Petition No. 2808 of 2006 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Mar 2007
- Bench
- D B BHOSALE
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 309
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. I say that on the basis of above facts the case of petitioner falls of the category of 6(a) of the guidelines dated 11th May,1992 and therefore Government has rightly remitted his sentence which is in excess of 28 years as per order dated…
Judgment
------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Ms. S Upadhyaya, for the petitioner. Ms S.D.Shinde, APP for the respondent. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATED : 14th MARCH, 2007 DATED : 14th MARCH, 2007 DATED : 14th MARCH, 2007 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondent. We have perused the affidavit of Mr Avinash Sable, Under Secretary, Home Department. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the affidavit read thus: "5. I say that the prisoner was granted furlough leave on 6.9.1996 and he had not surrendered within time as a result he was arrested by police after 167 days. I further say that he was also granted a parole leave on 6.4.1998 and he had not surrendered in time and overstayed for of 999 days and he was arrested by police on 31.3.2001.
I say that while convict was released on parole on 6.4.1998 he was to stay at Kalyan where his residence is. However during above parole period he was not available at Kalyan and police arrested him in Nasik, he had tried to immolate himself by pouring kerosene for avoiding arrest and therefore Ambad police station Nasik, registered offence against him under section 309 of IPC in CR No.3009/2001. He was also convicted for offence punishable under section 309 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for fifteen days by Sessions Judge Nasik.
Operative part
I say that on the basis of above facts the case of petitioner falls of the category of 6(a) of the guidelines dated 11th May,1992 and therefore Government has rightly remitted his sentence which is in excess of 28 years as per order dated 24th July, 2006. I say that guideline 6(a) reads as under :- "Prisoners who have escaped from lawful custody while undergoing imprisonment or who absconded while on parole or furlough". From the above facts it is clear that the case of the petitioner falls in category 6(a) of the guidelines and, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed. " In view of the above, the petitioner has been placed in category 6(a) of the Guidelines. No case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)
(SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 309.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Mar 2007. The bench was D B BHOSALE.
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.