Allowed

Satishkumar R. Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Mar 2011WP/206/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Bombay High Court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's furlough application by a prison authority, holding that the petitioner had prima facie completed two years of actual imprisonment. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the application afresh within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order rejecting the furlough application and directed the authorities to decide the application afresh within two weeks.

Satishkumar R. Agarwal Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

spb/-

wp206-11.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 206 OF 2011

¶6

Satishmukar R. Agarwal ... Petitioner . V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.

¶7

Through Jail :

¶8

Mr. N.N.Gawankar, Advocate appointed as amicus curiae. Ms. M.Y.Mhatre, APP for the State. Mr. D.A.Nalawade for the Respondent.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & M.N.GILANI,JJ. DATE : 28TH MARCH, 2011.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶13

2 A communication sent by the petitioner through Jail who is undergoing sentence in the Central Prison at Daman taking exception to the order passed by the authorities dated 15.12.2010, rejecting his application for his release on furlough leave on the ground that the petitioner had not completed two years of actual imprisonment is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

¶14

3 It appears that the petitioner came to be arrested on 23.06.1987 and was thereafter, released on bail on 16.11.1987. The petitioner came to be convicted by the trial court on 04.02.1989 and thereafter came to be released as per the order of the appellate court on bail on 20.09.1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 06.07.2009 and the petitioner was taken in the custody on 20.07.2009 and since then the petitioner is in custody.

spb/-

wp206-11.sxw

4 In the light of the aforesaid facts, prima facie, it appears to us that the petitioner has completed two years of actual imprisonment. In that light of the matter, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2010 and direct the respondent authorities to decide the application of the petitioner for his release on furlough afresh in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today and communicate the decision to the petitioner in jail. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to communicate this order to the Respondents. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no orders as to costs.

Satishkumar R. Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satishkumar R. Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Laxmibai Babaram Chikhalkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayed Ghulam Abbas Kazmi Vs H.H.J Shri M.L. Tahiliyani and Anr.

Shailesh S/O.Rajnikant Kamdar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Halima Mohmad Usman Bagwan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chapalendu Dutta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Khevna Ravisankar Pujari and Anr. Vs the Administrator Union Territory Adn Ors.