Dismissed

Sanjay Marotrao Borekar C/7031 v. State of Maharashtra through Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC28 Aug 2012WP/373/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's application for release on furlough from the Nagur Central Prison. The rejection was due to the petitioner's consistent history of late surrender during previous furloughs and parole. The Court held that the petitioner became disentitled under the Prison Rules.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sanjay Marotrao Borekar C/7031 Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/2

¶2

28.08.373.12

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 373 / 2012 (Sanjay Marotrao Borekar vs. The State of Maharashtra and another)

¶5

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

¶6

Mrs. Nitesh Samudre, Adv. for petitioner Mr M K Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents

¶7

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS &

¶8

M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : 28^th August, 2012.

¶9

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to an order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the authorities rejecting the Application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough. The principal reason for rejection of his Application for furlough was that on earlier occasions whenever the petitioner had been released either on parole or on furlough, the petitioner was late in surrender.

¶10

In response to the notice issued by us, the respondents have filed an affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply, a chart is reproduced, which gives the number of occasions when the petitioner was late in surrendering as well as the number of days the petitioner had surrendered late. As per the chart, it appears that the petitioner was released on furlough on 15.7.2006 but had surrendered late by 13 days. The petitioner was released on parole on 3.5.2007 but, again, had surrendered late by 17 days.

¶11

2/2

¶12

28.08.373.12

¶13

Thereafter on 15.9.2009, 7.5.2010 and 10.10.2011, the petitioner had been released on furlough, but the petitioner had surrendered late by 20 days, 2 days and 18 days. Even when the petitioner was released on parole on 13.10.2010, the petitioner had surrendered late by 12 days.

¶14

Mr. Nitin Samudre, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged before us that the late surrender was not a deliberate act but it was because of certain circumstances that the petitioner had surrendered late. It is further urged before us that the petitioner had already been punished for the late surrender and, therefore, the Application of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected by the respondents. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order.

¶15

Rule 4 (4)(10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 clearly indicates that the person would become disentitled for release on furlough in the event of breach of conditions of his release. The petitioner has consistently surrendered late and, therefore, the petitioner had rendered himself disentitled. The authorities in their wisdom, had released the petitioner on furlough though the petitioner had surrendered late on earlier occasions. We therefore, cannot fault the exercise of discretion of the authorities in rejecting the present Application. We,thus, see no merit in the Petition and the Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶16

JUDGEJUDGE

¶17

sahare

Sanjay Marotrao Borekar C/7031 v. State of Maharashtra through Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Marotrao Borekar C/7031 v. State of Maharashtra through Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra through in Charge Pso Akot Vs Arun Narayan Solanke

Govinda S/O Bisan Pandhare Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Divisional Commissioner and Anr.

State of Maharashtra through Pso Mangrulpir Distt Washim Vs Prabhakar S/O Uttamrao Lahe and Others

Suraj Naresh Kuttarmare Vs Commissioner of Police, Nagpur

Laxman S/O Ganpat Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Asegaon Distt Washim

Marotrao S/O Mahadeorao Deshmukh Vs State of Mah,Thr Its Secretary and 4 Ors.