Rahul Dagdu Shirsat vs The Superintendent, Central ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3809 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3809 Bom
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2022

Bombay High Court

Rahul Dagdu Shirsat vs The Superintendent, Central ... on 7 April, 2022

Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar

Judgment                             1                    CRIWP639.21.odt




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


               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2021


Rahul Dagdu Shirsat,
Aged about 32 years,
(C/5422, Central Prison, Amravati,
District Amravati                                 .... APPELLANT

                              // VERSUS //

The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Amravati,
District Amravati.                                      .... RESPONDENT
___________________________________________________________________
        Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for the petitioner.
       Smt. N. R. Tripathy, learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State
___________________________________________________________________

           CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 07, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- V. M. Deshpande, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Shri S. D. Chande, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Smt. N. R. Tripathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

Judgment 2 CRIWP639.21.odt

3. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order

passed by the respondent authority, whereby the application of the

petitioner for releasing him on emergency parole came to be rejected.

4. The respondent authority has filed reply. In the reply it is

stated that apart from other offences, the petitioner is convicted for the

offence punishable under Sections 5(k) and 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

5. In that view of the matter, the law laid down by the Full

Bench of this Court in Pintu Uttam Sonale .vs. State of Maharashtra,

reported in 2020 (6) Mh.L.J. 627 is squarely applicable in this case.

6. No case is made out for interfering with impugned order.

The petition is accordingly rejected. Rule stands discharged.

                                          JUDGE                           JUDGE

                       Diwale




Digitally signed byPARAG
PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE
Signing Date:08.04.2022
16:58