Dismissed

Shaikh Ameen Shaikh Bapu v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC6 Aug 2009WP/610/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by a life convict seeking furlough. Noting the petitioner's significant overstay of leave previously, the court held that since the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons granted furlough, the petitioner must comply with the conditions imposed, and no interference via writ jurisdiction is called for.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with directions to the respondent to comply with the conditions of the furlough order.

Shaikh Ameen Shaikh Bapu Vs the State of Mah — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

1 Cr.WP 610/2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.610 OF 2009
Shaikh Ameen Shaikh Bapu ... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.

¶4

Smt. V.A. Shinde, Advocate appointed for the
petitioner.

¶5

Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for the State.

¶6

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL &
 SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ.

¶7

DATE: 6^th AUGUST 2009

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

1) Heard.

¶10

2)The petitioner, life convict, is

¶11

undergoing sentence for offences punishable under

¶12

sections 302, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, since

¶13

15-2-1992. It is revealed that the petitioner was

¶14

granted 30 days’ furlough on 19.9.1995. However

¶15

he did not surrender in time and came to be

¶16

2 Cr.WP 610/2009

¶17

arrested by the police authorities on 5-5-2004,
which shows that he overstayed leave period by
3118 days.

¶18

3)The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in the year 2007 the petitioner was
released on parole and he surrendered in time.

¶19

4)We have perused the report filed on

¶20

behalf of the Commissioner of Police to the Jail

¶21

authorities dated 18-3-2009. The report is

¶22

adverse. In spite of past history of

¶23

petitioner’s overstaying leave period for

¶24

abnormal period of more than 8 and half years,
the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons by order
dated 27th April 2009 granted furlough on
conditions of furnishing PR Bond of Rs.25000 and
on furnishing surety of relatives and non
relatives in the like amount.

¶25

5)In Criminal Writ Petition No.565 of 2009
(Bharat Krishnarao Mohadikar vs. The State)

¶26

decided today by us it is noticed that the Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons had rejected the

¶27

3 Cr.WP 610/2009

¶28

furlough to the petitioner therein on the ground
that he overstayed the leave period by 93 days
and the petitioner therein had to be arrested by
police. Reliance was placed by the Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons on the provisions of
rules 4(4),(6) and (10) of the Prisons (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. But in the
present case though the petitioner was overstayed
leave period for more than 8 and half years and
had to be arrested, the Deputy Inspector General
of Prisons had granted the furlough to the
petitioner. We find disparities in the approach
of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons in
deciding applications of this nature.

¶29

6)ThelearnedAdditionalPublic
Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that,
though the petitioner was released on parole in
the year 2007 and he surrendered in time.

¶30

7) As the Deputy Inspector General of

¶31

Prisons had passed order the petitioner can avail
of the benefit of the order if the terms and
conditions of the order are complied with. The

¶32

4 Cr.WP 610/2009

¶33

request of the petitioner seeking directions to
the Tahsildar need not be granted by this Court.
The petitioner will have to satisfy the
conditions imposed by the Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons in the order granting
furlough.

¶34

8)Considering the facts and circumstances
of this case, no interference is called for in
exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226.

¶35

9) The writ petition is dismissed. The
counsel was appointed for the petitioner. The
High Court Legal Services Sub Committee
Aurangabad shall pay the counsel’s fees as per
rules. A.P.P. to forward copy of the order to the
DeputyInspectorGeneralofPrisons.

¶36

Authenticated copy be provided to the A.P.P.

¶37

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶38

rsl/ crwp.610.09

Shaikh Ameen Shaikh Bapu v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Ameen Shaikh Bapu v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar Pandit Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ashabai Bhavrao Desale

State of Maharashtra Vs Raju S/O. Bhagwat Suryawanshi and Ors.

Smt.Shaila Pradeep Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sau. Suman W/O. Ashok Bhusari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bharat Krishnarao Mohadakar Vs the State of Maharashtra