Manik Ganpati Sagar vs The State Of Mah
2017 Latest Caselaw 4824 Bom

                                                                       WP/886/2009
                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           935 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.886 OF 2009


 Manik Ganpati Sagar
 Age Major, R/o Convict No.2497,
 Central Jail, Aurangabad,
 District Aurangabad.                             ...       Petitioner

          Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          Through Secretary,
          Home Department Mantralaya,
          Mumbai.

 2.       The Superintendent
          Central Prison at Aurangabad

 3.       The Jailor
          Central Prison at Aurangabad.           ...       Respondents

                                   ...
 Mr. U.K.Patil, Advocate for Petitioner (Appointed)
 Mr. P.G.Borade, AGP for State
                                   ...

                               CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE, AND
                                       SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 20th July, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shri. T.V.Nalawade, J.) :-

1. Heard both the sides. Seen the reply-affidavit filed by the

respondents.

WP/886/2009

2. The allegations are made in the petition against some

Officers of Jail with regard to illegal activities carried out by them

inside of the Jail, including supply of drugs. There is also personal

grievances of the petitioner that, his wages were not paid to him.

There was another prayer made, to release him from jail as he had

completed 14 years of jail turn when he is life convict.

3. The submission made in reply affidavit shows that, in

October-2009, the petitioner came to be released from jail. The

account of wages was also settled and particulars are also given in the

reply affidavit.

4. So far as the allegations made against the jail authorities

are concerned it can be said that, allegations were made against the jail

officers working in the jail at that time. There is no possibility that

they are still working there in the same jail. Further in reply affidavit

it is mentioned that when the inquiry was started the petitioner refused

to turn up to give the statement. Ordinarily when the allegations are

against the officer of the jail, nobody comes forward including the

prisoners as they are afraid to face the harassment. The petitioner

himself did not turned up.

WP/886/2009

5. In view of above, this Court holds that, nothing survived

in this petition. Petition is disposed off accordingly. Rule is

discharged. The fees of the appointed counsel is quantified as

Rs.4000/-.

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V.NALAWADE, J.)

...

vmk