Thursday, 30, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Dhephe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 574 Bom

Citation : 2018 Latest Caselaw 574 Bom
Judgement Date : 17 January, 2018

Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Dhephe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 January, 2018
                                                                 27. Cri. WP 1637-17.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1637 OF 2017


       Mr. Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Dhephe                         ...Petitioner
                                                         (Org.Accused/Convict)
                  Vs.
       The State of Maharashtra & ors.               ...Respondents
                                  ...........
       Mr. Prashant Badole, Advocate for the petitioner.

       Mr. Arfan Sait, A.P.P. - State.
                                           ...........

                        CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.  
                                       AND M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE : 17th JANUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. V .K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.) :-

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in

Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur. The case of the

petitioner is that he has completed 14 years of actual

imprisonment, however, his case for premature release is not yet

decided by the State Government. This petition was filed on

13/4/2017.

27. Cri. WP 1637-17.doc

3. Learned APP pointed out that the case has been

categorized and decided by the State Government by order

dated 28th September, 2017. The said order and annexure are

taken on record and marked "X colly" for identification. As the

grievance of the petitioner was that the Government was not

deciding his case for premature release, in view of the fact that

the Government has decided the same, this petition is

infructuous, hence, rule is discharged.

4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision dated

28th September, 2017, it could be open to him to challenge the

same.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter