Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Prisons Act

7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7

BABURAM VIDESHIBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Baburam Videshbhai, convicted of murder under IPC sections 302 and 294(b) and of an offence under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, applied for a 21‑day parole leave to withdraw money from his General Provident Fund. He has been absconding for 4,109 days between January 2013 …

SIDDHRAJ @ SURYA DHIRUBHAI MAYDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The applicant, Siddhraj @ Surya Dhirubhai Mayda, was released on a 14‑day furlough leave from 5‑Sept‑2023 to 18‑Sept‑2023 but was subsequently apprehended by police, resulting in a 235‑day delay before he sought regularisation of the furlough. An application filed on 13‑May‑2025 for regularisation …

MADANversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2023 INSC 990Disposed off

The case arose from a 2003 incident in Muzzafarnagar where six persons were killed by indiscriminate firing by the appellants Madan, Sudesh Pal and others, allegedly motivated by political rivalry. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced …

MUKESH KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 103Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar, a death‑row convict in the Nirbhaya gang‑rape case, filed a mercy petition under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, which was rejected by the Lieutenant Governor on 15 January 2020 and by the President on 17 January 2020. He challenged the rejection before the Supreme Court, …

AVTAR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2002 INSC 86Dismissed

Avtar Singh, a convicted prisoner, applied to have the period of his parole counted towards his total sentence. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected his claim, holding that Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 excludes parole periods from the total …

R.D. UPADHYAYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 550Directions issued

The Supreme Court heard a writ petition under Article 32 concerning Ajoy Ghosh, a prisoner‑lunatic detained since 1962 in West Bengal prisons. The Court found that the prison authorities and the Assistant Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had failed to provide medical care or maintain records from 1964 …

RAMESH KAUSHIKversusB. L. VIG, SUPERINIBNDENT AND ANR.

1980 INSC 101Case Allowed

Ramesh Kaushik, a life‑time inmate of Tihar Jail, filed a quasi‑habeas corpus petition under Article 32 alleging systematic torture, corruption, drug‑racketeering, sexual exploitation and class‑based privileges within the prison. The petition claimed violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the …