Allowed

Nitin Yedba Gaikwad, C.No. 4402, Open Prison, Paithan v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC27 Mar 2012WP/217/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition quashed an order rejecting a parole application due to lack of application of mind by authorities and directed the Divisional Commissioner to grant parole leave immediately.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 15th February 2012; directed the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to pass orders for releasing the petitioner on parole leave at the earliest.

Nitin Yedba Gaikwad, C.No. 4402, Open Prison, Paithan Vs the… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cwp217.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2012

¶6

Nitin s/o Yedba Gaikwad,
C-4295, Open Prison,
Tq-Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad.

¶7

...PETITIONER.

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

2) The Divisional Commissioner,
 Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS.

¶11

 ...
 Smt. Manjusha S. Jagtap-Vare Advocate
 appointed for the Petitioner.
 Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondents.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 27TH MARCH, 2012.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :

¶16

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶17

cwp217.12

¶18

¶19

2.The Petitioner applied for Parole leave

¶20

on account of illness of his mother, which
application was received by the Office of the
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 16th
September, 2011. Police report was called, which
was received from the Office of the Superintendent
of Police (Rural), Solapur, on 4th January 2012,
at highly belated stage and against the clauses of
the Circular issued by the State Government in
this regard.

¶21

3. The Petitioner is lodged in Open Prison,
Paithan. We have perused the report submitted by
Mr. Tushar Doshi, Superintendent of Police
(Rural), Solapur. Perusal of the report filed by
the Superintendent of Police and the order passed
by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated
15th February 2012, show that there has been total
non-application of mind on the part of both the
Authorities regarding facts of the issue which
they were called upon to consider.

¶22

cwp217.12

¶23

¶24

4.The learned counsel appointed for the

¶25

Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is serving
sentence since last 11 years and he was released
on leave for 5 to 6 times. He has surrendered in
time. Even the report submitted by the Police,
does not show any serious adverse circumstance
against the Petitioner.

¶26

5.In the facts of the case, the Divisional
Commissioner ought to have allowed the application
of the Petitioner for releasing him on Parole
leave.

¶27

6.We therefore, quash and set aside the
order dated 15th February 2012, passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. We direct the
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to pass
appropriate orders directing release of the
Petitioner on Parole leave, at the earliest, no
sooner copy of this order is received.

¶28

cwp217.12

¶29

¶30

7.Rule is made absolute on the terms

¶31

indicated above.

¶32

8. The Parties shall act upon the

¶33

authenticated copy of this order. Authenticated

¶34

copy of this order be provided to the parties.

¶35

9.The counsel was appointed for the
Petitioner. The Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad to pay
professional fees to the counsel appointed, as per
rules.

¶36

[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
asb/MAR12

Nitin Yedba Gaikwad, C.No. 4402, Open Prison, Paithan v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Yedba Gaikwad, C.No. 4402, Open Prison, Paithan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Exide Inds Ltd. Thr Authorised Representative Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Abhijeet Chandrashekhar Poopal Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Abhijeet Chandrashekhar Poopal Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramesh Rangrao Walsange and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Rafik Babu Shaikh, C.No. 4321 Open Prison, Paithan Vs the State of Mah

Chandrakant Namdeorao Mohod Vs the Dig Prisons (C) (R), Abad and Ors.