Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3748; 2009(6)MhLj287
Bilal Nazki, J.1. All these writ petitions raise same questions and relate to the same incident. For the purpose of facts, we are taking Criminal Writ Petition No. 1377 of 2008 as it is more comprehensive than the other petitions. The writ petitions have been filed either by the prisoner or the person interested in their welfare. The prisoners are involved in some serious offences.2. In this writ petition, which is filed on behalf of Mohd. Sohail Mehmood Sheikh, the son of the prisoner has stated that while in Bombay Central Prison, on several occasions prisoner was pressurized to become an approver by the Anti Terrorism Squad with the help of Jail Authorities. The prisoner complained to various authorities, he suffered mental agony, physical harm and abuse from Mrs. Swati Sathe, the Superintendent and Jailor Mr. Govind Patil.3. On 28th June, 2008, Sohail and other 27 prisoners were brutally, inhumanly and savagely beaten up by the Jail authorities along with other convicts and gangste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :08. 09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.671 of 2014 Meharraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1) The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2) The Additional Director General of Police, Egmore, Chennai-600 0085. 3) The Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai. 4) Mr.Palani, The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy. 5) Mr.Senthil Kumar, The Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to transfer the husband of the petitioner namely, Mohammed Hanifa aged about 34 years from Trichy Central Prison to Madurai Central Prison or Palayamkottai Central Prison and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)MPHT22
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The two appeals have been filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18247/2006 and W.P. No. 7392/2007 on 27-8-2007.2. The appellant in W.A. No. 1428/2007 was convicted under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced to RI for life in Sessions Trial No. 203 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore on 1-1 -2005. After completion of 2 years and two months and 20 days of imprisonment, the appellant filed an application for parole but the Collector, Sehore by order dated 21-8-2006 rejected the application. Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No. 18247/2006 against the order of rejection of his application for parole, but by the impugned order dated 27-8-2007 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition after holding that the reasons assigned in the impugned order rejecting the application for parole were good reasons.3. The appellant in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT474
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J. 1. Both these petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner Ram Sewak was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life imprisonment by Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh by judgment dated 17-4-1998. He filed an application for first leave under Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules'). That application was allowed. Thereafter the petitioner filed another application for subsequent leave under Rule 8 of the Rules. The said application was returned by the Inspector General of Prisons to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jabalpur, relying upon the circular dated 10-9-2004 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Bhopal is ultra vires and is contrary to the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules. Petitioner contends that the Act and the Rules no where provides that sanctioning authority of the subsequent leave application filed in the ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2209
N.P. Singh, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of State of West Bengal and its authorities for setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 20th January, 1992 passed by a learned Judge of this court on a writ application filed on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent.2. When the application filed on behalf of the appellant-State for staying operation of the judgment and order under appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for both the parties suggested that the appeal itself be treated as on day's list for hearing and be disposed of along with the application for interim relief. Accordingly, the appeal taken up for hearing along with the application for interim relief.3. The writ petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was an accused for having committed a pre-planned brutal murder of his daughter-in-law one Debjani. After trial he was sentenced to death which was confirmed by this High Court as well as by the Supreme Court on appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC184
1. Mr Ganesh on behalf of the petitioner has applied for certain directions in this matter in order to be able to file his submissions on the various issues which have been formulated for decision by this Court by its Order dated September 14, 1981. 2. The first item on which Mr Ganesh seeks direction from us is one on which we do not think it necessary to direct the respondent to give us any information, but we think that it would be appropriate if the Secretary of the District Legal Aid Committee of Tirunelveli is directed to visit the jail at Palayamkotti and meet the petitioner to obtain from him the necessary information in regard to the various matters set out in Item (1) and transmit such information to this Court within three weeks from today. The respondent will provide the necessary facilities to the Secretary to visit the jail and to interview the petitioner for this purpose. 3. The other item on which we propose to give directions is Item (4) which relates to the report of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori268; 35(1969)CLT411; 1969CriLJ1414
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. This is an application seeking to review the operative part of the judgment of this Court dated 23th November, 1967, passed in Cr. Revn. No. 298/66. The operative part of the judgment contained in its last paragraph runs as follows: 'Learned counsel for the petitioner however, states that the accused has already undergone a part of the substantive sentence and that he had had sufficient harassment since the prosecution was launched. While, therefore, maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420, I. P. C., I would reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone, and maintain the sentence of fine, and with this modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed.'2. Cr. Revision No. 298/66 was filed by the accused-opposite-party against the confirming order of conviction and sentence dated 28-4-66 passed by Sri S.K. Patra, Sessions Judge of Puri by which he was convicted under Section 420 IPC., and sentenced to R. I. for two mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Application No.1156 of 2015 has been filed by the applicants under Judge's summons under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC, praying to condone the delay of 54 days in preferring appeal against the order dated 17.09.2014 passed in Application No.4969 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997, passed by the learned Master. Application No.1157 of 2015 has been filed by the applicants under Judge's summons under Order XIV Rule 12 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC, praying to permit them to file appeal against the order dated 17.09.2014 passed in Application No.4969 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997 by the learned Master. Application No.1158 of 2015 has been filed by the applicants under Judge's summons under Order XIV Rule 12 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC, praying to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the order dated 17.09.2014 in Application No.4969 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997, passed by the learned Master. Application No.1159 of 2015 has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 38 of 2014 Sanjay Gope Son of Munnu Gope, resident of village Keshipara, PO, PS & District-Gumla . . Petitioner --Versus-- 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Superintendent of Mandal Kara, Gumla . . Respondents For the petitioner : M/s Mohit Prakash & Vani Kumari, Advocates For the State : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, A.P.P. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA ----------- C.A.V. ON:16. 07/2015 PRONOUNCED ON-31/07/2015 The sole petitioner Sanjay Gope by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has questioned the legality of the order of respondent no.2- Superintendent of Mandal Kara, Gumla whereby he has shifted the petitioner from Mandal Kara, Gumla to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Kendriya Kara, Hazaribagh (in short L.N.J.P. Kendriya Kara, Hazaribagh) without taking prior permission of the court concerned.2. The factual matrix of the case, in short, is that the petitioner was transferred from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND KEANE JJ. 1. The appellant was convicted following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Williams J) of intentionally causing serious injury to a man named Khadr Sleiman[1]. A second count, an alternative to the first, charged the appellant with recklessly causing serious injury to Mr Sleiman[2]. Mr Sleiman suffered multiple injuries as the result of being struck by a motor vehicle that at the time was being driven by the appellant. It was the prosecution case that the appellant deliberately struck Mr Sleiman with the vehicle intending thereby to cause him serious injury. It was the defence case that Mr Sleiman was struck accidentally while the appellant manoeuvred his vehicle in reverse in an endeavour to get away from Mr Sleiman, who was menacing him with a knife. 2. During the course of its retirement the jury sought clarification of the distinction between an intention to cause serious injury, the mental element of the offence charged...
Tag this Judgment!