1 wp.357-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2010 Sumit Brijamali Giri ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.341 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.495 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2011 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.200 OF 2011 ----- Mr. Arfan Sait, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State. Mr. Vijay Killedar i/b Mr. Nitin Jamdar, for Respondent Nos.5 and 7. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 22, 2011. P.C.: 1. The petitioner is an under trial prisoner, and he has been writing 2 wp.357-2010 letters to the registry of this office on number of occasions. At his request, he was also produced before us in connection with his criminal writ petition filed for the relief of enhancing the wages payable to the prisoners as and when they are assigned specific jobs. He insisted that he ought to be heard by the court, and he was accordingly heard and the order passed earlier was confirmed. 2. In this Petition as well as in the Applications, he has raised the grievance about the ill-treatment and handcuffing by the jail officials. He made a grievance that as and when he was brought to the court in connection with the trials before the court below, and at the end of the court proceedings he was handcuffed, on his return to the jail. If that be so, nothing stops him from bringing this fact to the notice of the trial court concerned about the ill-treatment or handcuffing. By letter dated 23.7.2010, the Police Inspector (Crimes) from Thane Nagar Police Station had informed him that if there was any incident of ill- treatment he was free to bring the same to the knowledge of the court or file an application. He has done nothing, save and except writing several letters to the registry of this court. Even in these letters he has not given any specific incidence of handcuffing, and only makes general statement that while he has been taken back to the jail, he has been handcuffed and the video camera installed in jails would support this contention. We must also note that the Chief Judaical Magistrate visits the prison almost every week and the petitioner is not prevented 3 wp.357-2010 from brining such incidents before the said judicial officer for corrective steps at the spot. 3. As noted earlier, these allegations could be looked into by the trial court before whom he is being produced from time to time. 4. Hence, this Criminal Writ Petition along with all Criminal Applications are rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)