Dismissed

Shivsingh Raisingh Ingle, Convict No. C 558 v. the D.I.G. Prison (C) (R) Amravati and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Nov 2010WP/625/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Responding to a letter petition for parole based on poverty, the court rejected the plea, noting the petitioner's history of overstaying parole four times. The court held that poverty does not warrant special latitude and refused the prayer for parole while allowing a separate furlough application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for parole rejected; petitioner free to apply for furlough as per law.

Shivsingh Raisingh Ingle, Convict No. C 558… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.625 of 2010 [Shivsingh Raisingh Ingle Vs. DIG Prisons & another]

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Petition received by Post.
Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, APP for respondents.

¶6

 -----

¶7

CORAM: A.H. JOSHI AND
A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 30th November, 2010.

¶9

1.This is a Letter-Petition.

¶10

2.Petitioner states that he was released
on parole in past on four occasions, and had
overstayed on all occasions due to poverty. His
request for grant of parole has been rejected
considering his previous conduct. He prays
that:-

¶11

[a]He may be given assistance of
a lawyer for prosecuting the
present petition.

¶12

[b]Considering the poverty of his
family, he may be granted
parole.

¶13

3. In so far as the prayer for appointment of a lawyer from the panel is concerned, we

¶14

¶15

record with deep pains that we have noticed that
lawyers appointed from the panel have been
consuming months for filing a petition in the
proper format and taking circulation thereof.
Situation is as if, according to learned
Advocates, the principle of �Justice delayed is
Justice denied� only applies to the Courts, and
it has no application to the lawyers on the
panel.

¶16

4.We could not anticipate as to how much
time would be lost, would we choose to appoint a
lawyer from the panel.

¶17

5.We, therefore, chose not to waste time
in appointing a lawyer, and decide to consider
the matter upon reading the petition and at our
own effort.

¶18

6. We have perused the petition.

¶19

7. Heard learned APP.

¶20

8.Petitioner�s stay with his family in
violation of tenure allowed in release order
cannot be said to have really improved the
condition of the family. Petitioner is,
therefore, not entitled to any special latitude
barely on account of his poverty, particularly

¶21

¶22

when admittedly on each of four occasions, he
has overstayed.

¶23

9.Moreover, petitioner may not be the
only person similarly situated. Law cannot carve
out a class of prisoners suffering poverty to be
specially favoured on that ground. If case is
made out on facts, and authority granting
furlough is satisfied, the furlough may be
extended as per rules, however, any other
latitude cannot be granted on this ground.

¶24

10. Had the petitioner not dis-entitled
himself by way of forfeiture etc., his
concession of parole would have followed almost
naturally. No special latitude, however, can be
granted in terms of petitioner�s prayer.

¶25

11. Therefore, we are not in agreement with
the petitioner�s plea that poverty constitutes
justification for him to take law in his own
hand.

¶26

12.Considering the totality of the
circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any
indulgence and we do reject the Writ Petition.

¶27

13.Petitioner shall, however, be free to
apply for grant of furlough which application be
decided in accordance with law.

¶28

14.Copy of this order be forwarded to the

¶29

¶30

prisoner and the Superintendent of the Jail
concerned shall cause its contents be explained
to the petitioner.

¶31

JudgeJudge

¶32

|Hedau|

Shivsingh Raisingh Ingle, Convict No. C 558 v. the D.I.G. Prison (C) (R) Amravati and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivsingh Raisingh Ingle, Convict No. C 558 v. the D.I.G. Prison (C) (R) Amravati and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Motiram Masram, Convict No. C-5313 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and Anr.

Vinod Jangluji Bhakare, Convict No. C-8021 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and Anr.

Chintaman Parasram Kalamkar, Convict No. C 7428 Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division and Anr.

Madnay @ Karapa Shankar Atram, Convict No. 35 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and Anr.

Ashok Reddy S/O Sathi Reddy Vs Distt. Supdt. of Police, Gadchiroli and 2 Oths

Convicts Undergoing Sentence in the Nagpur Central Jail Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Anr.