Arvindkumar Bhaiyalal Sahu vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1600 Bom

                       (17)-WP-391-20.doc.


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          Digitally
          signed by
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2023.02.18
          11:06:35
          +0530                           WRIT PETITION NO.391 OF 2020

                       Arvindkumar Bhaiyalal Sahu                            ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       ..Respondents

                       Mr. Manas N. Gawankar, for the Petitioner.
                       Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State.

                                                      CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                                              R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2023 P.C.

1. In the petition for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus following prayers are made :-

"a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith;

b) pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction ordering and directing an inquiry to be held under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 for verifying the claim of juvenility raised by the petitioner;

c) pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to suspend the sentence and release the petitioner on bail on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble may deem fit;"

                       BGP.                                                         1 of 3
 (17)-WP-391-20.doc.

2. The petitioner for murdering his wife was convicted in Sessions Case No.72 of 2010 vide judgment and order dated 4 th May, 2010. The petitioner on the aforesaid claim has sought to canvass that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to proceed against him. In view of above, this Court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct an inquiry as to whether the petitioner can be termed as juvenile in conflict with law. The Principal Magistrate Suburban Juvenile Justice Board, 21st Court, Mumbai has noted in the report dated 9th September, 2021 that the petitioner is not juvenile in conflict with law as defined under Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

3. In view of aforesaid report, it is noticed that the petitioner has made a latent false statement on oath and has made himself liable for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. In view of above, issue notice to the petitioner to be served through the Jailer, Nashik Central Prison as to why he should not be proceeded under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for the aforesaid.

5. The petitioner should be made available copy of this order along with the copy of the order dated 9 th September, 2021 passed by Principal Magistrate, Suburban Juvenile Justice Board, 21st Court.

BGP.                                                       2 of 3
 (17)-WP-391-20.doc.

6. We expect the response of the petitioner to the aforesaid by 13th March, 2023.

7. We further direct the Jail Superintendent, Nashik Central Prison along with the social worker to explain repercussions of non-response of the petitioner to the present order.

8. Stand over to 20th March, 2023.

[R. N. LADDHA, J.]                       [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]




BGP.                                                       3 of 3