Manik Ganpati Sagar v. The State Of Mah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 935 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.886 OF 2009 Manik Ganpati Sagar Age Major, R/o Convict No.2497, Central Jail, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.

...

Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Superintendent Central Prison at Aurangabad 3.

The Jailor Central Prison at Aurangabad.

...

Respondents ...

Mr. U.K.Patil, Advocate for Petitioner (Appointed) Mr. P.G.Borade, AGP for State ...

CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE, AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 20th July, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shri. T.V.Nalawade, J.) :- 1.

Heard both the sides. Seen the reply-affidavit filed by the respondents.

2.

The allegations are made in the petition against some Officers of Jail with regard to illegal activities carried out by them inside of the Jail, including supply of drugs. There is also personal grievances of the petitioner that, his wages were not paid to him. There was another prayer made, to release him from jail as he had completed 14 years of jail turn when he is life convict. 3.

The submission made in reply affidavit shows that, in October-2009, the petitioner came to be released from jail. The account of wages was also settled and particulars are also given in the reply affidavit.

4.

So far as the allegations made against the jail authorities are concerned it can be said that, allegations were made against the jail officers working in the jail at that time. There is no possibility that they are still working there in the same jail. Further in reply affidavit it is mentioned that when the inquiry was started the petitioner refused to turn up to give the statement. Ordinarily when the allegations are against the officer of the jail, nobody comes forward including the prisoners as they are afraid to face the harassment. The petitioner himself did not turned up.

5.

In view of above, this Court holds that, nothing survived in this petition. Petition is disposed off accordingly. Rule is discharged. The fees of the appointed counsel is quantified as Rs.4000/-.

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) ...

vmk