Pravin S/O Pundalik Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. D.I.G. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4642 Bom

                                                                                   criwp88.21.odt
                                                   1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 88/2021

     PETITIONER :               Pravin s/o Pundalik Rathod,
                                aged 36 years, C-4804, Central Prison,
                                Amravati. Dist. Amravati.

                                             ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS:              1. The State of Maharashtra, through D.I.G,
                                  (Eastern Region), Nagpur.

                               2. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
                                    Amravati, Dist. Amaravati.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Mr. A.Y.Sharma, Advocate for petitioner
                       Ms. Nandita Dubey, APP for respondent nos.1 and 2
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                             AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

                                            DATE          : 12/03/2021.

     ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)


     1]                Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2] The petitioner is seeking his transfer from Amravati

prison to Yavatmal prison. However, we find that such a request of

criwp88.21.odt

the petitioner, which has already been rejected by the respondents,

cannot be accepted in the present facts and circumstances.

3] Now, it is brought on record that there is no room

available for accommodating any additional prisoner in the Yavatmal

prison. If this is so, the prisoner like the petitioner cannot insist

upon his transfer to Yavatmal prison and add to the congestion

already prevailing in Yavatmal prison.

4] There is no merit in the petition. The petition stands

dismissed.

5] The legal remuneration of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two

Thousand Five Hundred) be paid to the learned appointed counsel.

     6]                Rule is discharged.




                       JUDGE                                      JUDGE
     Rvjalit