Remanded

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

Bombay HC27 Mar 2012WP/218/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prisoner Rafiq sought release on furlough but could not provide a relative as surety. The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, noted the petitioner's unblemished record of surrender and directed the D.I.G. (Prisons) to pass fresh orders for furlough, allowing them discretion regarding the surety.

What did the court decide?

Remanded the matter to the D.I.G. (Prisons) to pass fresh orders directing release on furlough, with discretion to fix the surety condition.

Rafik Babu Shaikh, C.No. 4321 Open Prison, Paithan Vs the… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cwp218.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.218 OF 2012

¶6

Rafiq s/o Babu Shaikh,
Age-Major, Occu:Nil,
R/o- Prisoner No.4321,
Paithan Open District Jail,
Tq-Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad.

¶7

...PETITIONER.

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's D.I.G. Prison, Aurangabad,

¶10

2) Superintendent, Open Jail, Aurangabad.

¶11

3) Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Central Division, Aurangabad,

¶12

4) Superintendent of Police,

¶13

Satara, Dist-Satara.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS.

¶15

 ...
 Ms. Anuradha S. Mantri Advocate appointed
 for the Petitioner.
 Mrs.V.A. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondents.
 ...

¶16

cwp218.12

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

 DATE : 27TH MARCH, 2012.

¶20

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

¶21

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶22

2.The Petitioner applied for releasing him

¶23

on Furlough. By an order dated 16th January, 2012,
the D.I.G. (Prisons), Central Region, Aurangabad,
passed orders releasing the Petitioner on Furlough
leave for a period of two weeks, by suspending
execution of sentence for two weeks, inter-alia,
on a condition that he shall furnish personal bond
in the sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and
surety bond of a relative in the sum of Rs.1000/-
(Rupees One Thousand).

¶24

3.According to the contentions of the
Petitioner there is nobody available in his

¶25

family, for furnishing surety, therefore he could

¶26

cwp218.12

¶27

¶28

not satisfy the condition and failed to avail of
the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶29

4.The learned A.P.P. submitted that in the

¶30

year 2004, the Petitioner was convicted and
sentenced. He was released for near-about seven
times, twice on Parole and five times on Furlough.
Record reveals that once he surrendered one day

¶31

late. Except that lapse, the record of the
Petitioner in respect of surrendering to Jail

¶32

Authorities in time, has been unblemish.

¶33

5.We have gone through the written

¶34

representation made by the Petitioner addressed to
this Court, stating his inability to furnish
surety bond of relative.

¶35

6.In the meanwhile the required period of

¶36

two months to avail of the Furlough leave, has
also expired.

¶37

cwp218.12

¶38

¶39

7.Considering the past record of the

¶40

Petitioner/prisoner in respect of his release on
leave and surrender to the Jail Authorities, and
contentions raised in his written representation,
and after considering the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, we pass following order:

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

(A) The matter is remanded
back to the D.I.G. (Prisons),
Central Region, Aurangabad.

¶43

(B) We direct the D.I.G.
(Prisons),CentralRegion,
Aurangabad to pass fresh orders
directing release of the
Petitioner on Furlough leave.

¶44

(D) Considering the fact that
reasonable case is made out by
the Petitioner showing his
inability to furnish surety
bond by relative of the

¶45

cwp218.12

¶46

¶47

Petitioner,theD.I.G.
(Prisons), therefore, shall
pass appropriate orders by
exercising his discretion in
the matter, and intimate the
Petitioner accordingly, within
two weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.

¶48

(E) Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above.

¶49

(F) The counsel was appointed
forthePetitioner.The
Secretary, High Court Legal
ServicesSubCommittee,
Aurangabad to pay professional
fees to the appointed counsel,
as per rules.

¶50

asb/MAR12

¶51

[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafik Babu Shaikh, C.No. 4321 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

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

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