Dismissed

Nitin Laxman Pansare v. Home Department and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2011WP/951/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's parole leave. The Court held that the order was not erroneous as the petitioner had a past record of absconding and other family members could care for his ailing father.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; the rule was discharged; connected Criminal Application No.340/2011 was dismissed.

Nitin Laxman Pansare Vs Home Department and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

sat 1 wp 951-2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2011

¶4

Shri Nitin Laxman Pansare
vs.

¶5

Home Department, Mantralaya,
Government of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mrs.Harjeet Kaur for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State.

¶9

 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &
 U.D. SALVI, JJ.

¶10

 AUGUST 1, 2011

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1The petitioner is undergoing life sentence

¶13

and had submitted an application for parole leave.
The said application for parole leave was rejected by

¶14

the competent authority on 27th December, 2010. The
petitioner moved an appeal against the said order
before the State Government and the appeal has been
dismissed on 16th March, 2011.

¶15

sat 2 wp 951-2011

¶16

2Under the scheme of the Prisons (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, grant of parole
leave is a discretion subject to meeting of certain
contingencies and more particularly, some unexpected
circumstances like death in the family, marriage in
the family, hospitalization, etc.. If the application
for parole has been rejected by conducting an inquiry
or on the basis of the adverse past record of the
applicant, such an order may not call for an
interference so long as the reasons are supported
from the record.

¶17

3In the instant case, it has been stated in
the order that on an earlier occasion when the
petitioner was released on furlough leave, he had
absconded for 195 days and he was arrested by the
police and admitted to the jail. It is also stated

¶18

that some offences have been filed against the
petitioner. It is also stated that the reason given
for parole leave was father’s sickness and on inquiry
by the Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural), it was

¶19

sat 3 wp 951-2011 revealed that the petitioner has other family members to look after his ailing father. Hence, in our opinion, the order rejecting the application for parole leave and confirmed by the appellate authority, cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore, it does not call for any interference.

¶20

4The petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged. In view of the dismissal of the petition,
connected Criminal Application No.340/2011 does not
survive and the same is also dismissed.

¶21

5We make it clear that if the petitioner
submits an application for furlough leave, the same
will be considered on its own merits.

Nitin Laxman Pansare v. Home Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Laxman Pansare v. Home Department and Ors.

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

Mukesh Prahalad Sonar (Soni) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Darshan Dev Duggal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shakeel Zakaria Noorani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shardadevi Vikramjit Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Shankar Mulay Vs Pradip Shankar Mulay and Anr.

Rupa Laldut Lama Vs the State of Maharashtra