Bombay High CourtWP/419/2019dismissed

Shamal S/O Shanker Dutt v. The State Of Mah, Thr Its Secretary Home Department Mantrlaya, Mumbai-32

2019-09-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala2 pages

1 wp419.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 419/2019 Shamal S. Dutt ..VS..

State & ors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. S.P. Dhotre, Advocate (appt.) for the petitioner Ms. S. Jachak, APP for the respondent/State CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATED : 30/09/2019 Heard.

By this petition, the petitioner has sought directions to the respondent no. 3 - Senior Police Inspector, Police Station - Ghola and respondent no. 4 - Senior Police Inspector, Police Station - Gaighata to verify the cell phone numbers given by the petitioner which according to the petitioner are of his sisters.

Learned APP has pointed out the communication dated 20/08/2018 sent by Officer-In-Charge, Ghola Police Station, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ) and SPIO, Barrackpore Commissionerate in which it is stated that the record of phone no. 07278360858 is not available, and therefore information sought by the prisoner (present petitioner) cannot be provided.

2 wp419.19 The petitioner has further prayed that the respondent no. 2 - Superintendent of Jail be directed to permit him to make phone calls to his sisters through coin box telephone facility.

Again, for want of relevant details and any affidavit from the so-called sisters of the petitioner, it would not be possible for this Court to grant such prayer in the extraordinary jurisdiction.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

It would be open to any family member of the petitioner to take appropriate steps to seek redressal of the grievance as made in this petition.

Fees of the advocate appointed to represent the petitioner be paid as per the Rules.

JUDGE JUDGE Ansari