Bombay High Court
Dhirendera Vijay Yadav (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 26 February, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
11.cri.wp.305.2020.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.305/2020
Dhirendera Vijay Yadav,
Aged about 40 Years,
Occu.: Nil C-5356,
At present Central Prison,
Amravati, Distt. Amravati. ..... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Home Department,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati,
District Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri N. R. Patil, APP for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 26/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1] Heard.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
11.cri.wp.305.2020.odt
4] There is a confusion as regards the facts of the case as the
petitioner contends that his proposal seeking remission in sentence in
terms of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 is still pending
and has not been sent for opinion to the District and Sessions Judge,
Thane, the reply is silent as to whether or not the proposal is still
pending or has been sent for opinion to the concerned Court and the
opinion of the concerned Court has been received. The reply of the
States straight away refers to some order which is order No.71 of 2020
dated 03.01.2020 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thane
to the effect that as prisoner No. C-5356 is convicted for Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences, and the Protection of Children From
Sexual offence is being serious in nature, this prisoner is not entitled to
receive the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. In
support of this contention, to the reply is annexed a copy of the opinion
dated 30.12.2019. This opinion is of the date 30.12.2019 and does not
bear the date of 03.01.2020 as stated in the paragraph 4 of the reply
then, this opinion is not recorded by Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Thane but it is given by District Judge - 7 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Thane. It appears to us that there is an utter confusion
in understanding the facts of the case and therefore, it will not be
possible for this Court to adjudicate upon the issue involved in this
petition.
11.cri.wp.305.2020.odt
5] In these peculiar circumstances, we permit the petitioner to
file a fresh application seeking grant of remission in terms of
Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017, which the petitioner may do
so within two weeks from the date of the order. If the petitioner files
such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, same
shall be decided within four weeks from the date of receipt of the
application in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down
by this Court in the case of Ramu Rangrut Madkam Vs. The Deputy
Inspector General of prisons (East Zone) Nagpur , Criminal Writ Petition
No.32 of 2021, decided on 15.02.2021 and also the corrigendum dated
19.11.2018 substituting the clause (iii) of paragraph 5 of the GR dated
03.06.2017.
6] The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Rule accordingly.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)
Sarkate.
