Neel Jerome Misquitta vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 4807 Bom

                                                                               11b. cri wp 5126-14.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                                
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5126 OF 2014




                                                                        
            Neel Jerome Misquitta                                        .. Petitioner

                                 Versus




                                                                       
            The State of Maharashtra                                     .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances




                                                            
            Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar    APP for the State
                                              
                                     ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 22, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner is involved in a case under M.C.O.C. Act.

The prayer of the petitioner is that he be allowed to meet his

son for some hours at home in Mumbai through home visit.

The son of the petitioner, as of today, is about 11 years old.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 2



                                                              11b. cri wp 5126-14.doc




    The petitioner is lodged in Thane Central Prison.                           The




                                                                              

distance between Mumbai and Thane is negligible. There is

no provision for under-trial prisoners to visit home for few

hours. Moreover, it would be open to the son of the

petitioner to go to Thane Central Prison and meet the

petitioner. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to

interfere, hence, rule is discharged.

                                    
                                   
    [ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ]           [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
      
   






    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2