Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1597 (ALL)

RAMSWAROOP v. PRAMOD KUMAR TRIPATHI, SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL AND ANOTHER

CAPL/4501/2025 · 2026-02-15

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4501 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Sri Pramod Kumar Tripathi, Superintendent, District Jail, Fatehpur is present today in the Court, who is identified by Sri Pawan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel. 2. An affidavit along with exemption application has been filed today, which is taken on record. 3. According to learned Standing Counsel, in para 9, it has been mentioned that the mercy petition of the applicant was heard by the Committee on 11.11.2025 regarding premature release. The name of the applicant was in the list of 46 convicted prisoners and the applicant was placed at serial number 23. The records and checklist was forwarded to the State Government for consideration at the competent level. 4. According to learned Standing Counsel, the matter relating to applicant was processed at Government level and Special Secretary, Government of U.P. vide letter dated 28.11.2025 addressed to the Director General/ Inspector General, Prison Administration & Reforms Service, U.P., Lucknow communicated the factual position as referred in the orders of this Court. 5. As the matter was pending before the competent authority to take a decision and the opposite party had complied the order of the writ Court, the decision could not be taken by the competent authority and during Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ramswaroop .....Applicant(s) Pramod Kumar Tripathi, Superintendent District Jail And Another .....Opposite Party(s) pendency of the matter, the applicant unfortunately passed away on 25.01.2026 while undergoing treatment at SGPGI, Lucknow. 6. In view of the said fact as the applicant is no more, the contempt application has become infructuous and the same stands dismissed. 7. This Court finds that the opposite party no.1 had processed the file and forwarded it to the State Government which was sent to the competent authority to take final call which failed to do so within the time granted by the writ Court. 8. No case for contempt is made out against opposite party no.1. 9. Contempt application stands dismissed. Contempt notice stands discharged. February 16, 2026 SK Goswami CAPL No. 4501 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad