Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sunil B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote, JJ
Hanuman Anandrao Pendam v. State of Maharashtra and Another
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt initiated due to selective application of law. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's scrutiny of parole releases reveals inconsistencies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court assesses responses to earlier orders and conduct of contemnor. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. further investigation into the contemnor's actions mandated. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. emergency parole rules aim to reduce prison overcrowding. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. contemnor held guilty due to wilful disobedience of binding precedent. (Para 64 , 70 , 80) |
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. This is a suo motu contempt initiated in exercise of the power under Art.215 of the Constitution of India against a Contemnor Shri Anupkumar M. Kumre, Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, mainly on the grounds that the Contemnor selectively chose to apply the binding precedent of this Court as regards the release of prisoners in Central Prison, Nagpur on emergency parole in wilful disobedience of the judgment of this Court in the case of Milind Ashok Patil and Ors .v. State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Writ Petition - ASDB - LD - VC No.65/2020 thereby refusing to release 35 prisoners on eme
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
