Dismissed

Manohar S/O Warlu Jhade C/6774 v. State of Maharashtra through Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC23 Aug 2012WP/374/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition challenging the rejection of an application for furlough. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the authorities' decision to deny release due to the petitioner's consistent history of late surrender, finding no error in the exercise of discretion.

What the court decided

AI extract

Manohar S/O Warlu Jhade C/6774 Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp374.12.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2012

¶5

(MANOHAR WARLU JHADE...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR.D.I.G. PRISONS (E) ® & ANR..)

¶6

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

¶7

- - - - Mr. Nitesh Samundre, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Nayak, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 23, 2012.

¶9

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to an order dated 17.05.2012 passed by respondent rejecting application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough. By virtue of impugned order dated 17.05.2012 the respondent had rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner while released on earlier occasions had consistently surrendered late. The petitioner was late by 2, 9, 53 and 59 days and again by 2, 47 and 84 days.

¶10

The respondents in their affidavit-in-reply have furnished a chart in respect of various occasions when the petitioner had been released and the duration of his late surrender.

¶11

Mr. Nitesh Samundre, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that Rule 4(4)(10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 is directory in nature and therefore, the authorities ought to have exercised discretion according to law and in judicious manner.

¶12

2 wp374.12.odt

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has urged for dismissal of the application on the ground that the track record of the applicant consistently shows that the petitioner has surrendered late.

¶14

Even if it is assumed that Rule 4(4)(10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 is directory we cannot find fault in exercise of discretion by the authorities in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been surrendering late consistently whenever he had been released either on furlough or on parole. Merely because the petitioner has offered explanation for his late surrender that by itself would not take the case of the petitioner out of the ambit of Rule 4(4) (10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

¶15

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to us, there is no error in the order of the authorities below in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Consequently, there being no merit in the present petition, this petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶16

JUDGE JUDGE

¶17

RRaut.

Manohar S/O Warlu Jhade C/6774 v. State of Maharashtra through Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Manohar S/O Warlu Jhade C/6774 v. State of Maharashtra through Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Waman Bansod, Convict No C 5939 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Another

Rajni D/O Krushnadatta Ukey Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Deptt of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

The Thakkargram Gruhanirman Housing Society Ltd. Nagpur through Ex Secy. Dd Chichghare and Another Vs Shri Krushna Pancham Khopde and Others

Purushottam Ramchandra Deshbhartar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Kamptee

Uttam Narayan Ilame, C/159 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Home Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another

Mohd Riyaj Mohd Hussain, C/1950 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Home Deptt Mantralya, Mumbai and Another