Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Santosh Arjun Chavan vs The State Of Maharahsta And Ors on 9 December, 2019

Author: N.R. Borkar

Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, N.R. Borkar

                                                                       18-cri-wp-5208-19.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 5208 OF 2019

                 Santosh A. Chavan                                   ... Petitioner
                      V/s.
                 The State of Maharashtra and ors.                   ... Respondents

                                            ----------------
                 Nihitha Shankaran (Appointed Advocate) for the Petitioner.
                 Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                            ----------------


                                      CORAM           :   B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                          N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
                                          DATE        :   DECEMBER 09, 2019.

                 P.C.

                 1]         Heard learned Counsel (appointed) and learned APP. The

petitioner seeks parole leave. 2] He has been sentenced on 21st March 2014 under Sections 302, 149, 396 and 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). For Section 396 of IPC, he has to undergo life imprisonment while under Section 397 of IPC, he has to complete 7 years.

3] Rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Prison (Parole and Furlough) Rules, operates as bar. Prisoner like the petitioner Dinesh Digitally signed by Dinesh S. Sherla S. Date:

2019.12.11 Sherla 11:12:40 +0530 Dinesh Sherla 1/2 18-cri-wp-5208-19.doc cannot seek any leave till he completes stipulated period of punishment under Sections 396 and 397 of IPC. That part of period is yet to expire.
4] We, therefore, fnd no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
5] This order be communicated to the petitioner -prisoner in jail.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Dinesh Sherla 2/2