Dismissed

Shyam S/O Vishwanath Rodge v. Dig Prisons(East) Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC15 Oct 2012WP/466/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Nagpur Bench dismissed a challenge to the rejection of a furlough application. The court held that the petitioner's late surrender disentitled him to release under Rule 4(10) of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, finding no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shyam S/O Vishwanath Rodge Vs Dig… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1510wp466.12.odt

¶2

1/2

¶3

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

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 466 of 2012

¶5

Shyam s/o Vishwanath Rodge

¶6

...Versus...

¶7

D.I.G. Prisons (East), Nagpur & anr.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶9

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directio ns and Registrar's orders.

¶10

Mr. N.A. Badar Advocate for Petitioner.

¶11

Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, APP, for Respondents.

¶12

CORAM : P.V. Hardas & A.P. Bhangale, JJ. DATE : 15.10.2012.

¶13

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.8.2012 rejecting the application filed by him seeking his release on furlough. It appears that the said application was rejected in the light of the fact that the petitioner, when released earlier, was late in surrendering by 519 days and 1401 days. The respondents therefore came to the conclusion that in the light of Rule 4(10) of The Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959 the petitioner was disentitled to claim his release on furlough.

¶14

Shri Badar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Anil Laxman Jawade v. State of Maharashtra – 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1865 . In

¶15

1510wp466.12.odt

¶16

2/2

¶17

this reported judgment, the prisoner therein had applied for his release on furlough but the same was rejected on the ground of late surrender. The Division Bench in paragraph 6 thereof has held that Rule 4(10) of the said Rules is mandatory and the jail authorities are within their right to reject an application because of late surrender. The Division Bench ultimately dismissed the application but held that in the light of Rule 9 the petitioner was entitled to apply afresh.

¶18

Having examined the impugned order, we find that the petitioner was late in surrendering by 519 days and 1401 days and the authorities have rightly rejected his application. This petition, therefore, does not call for any interference and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

/TA/

Shyam S/O Vishwanath Rodge v. Dig Prisons(East) Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam S/O Vishwanath Rodge v. Dig Prisons(East) Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anjana Dayaram Dhakate Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Bramhapuri

Anil S/O Babanrao Patwardhan , C/ 4044 Vs State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Pranav Pramod Ashtikar and Another Vs Police Station Officer in Charge Wadi Police Station Amravati Road, Wadi Nagpur and Others

Smt. Pushpa Anilrao Lakde Vs State of Mah. Thr. Police Station and Anr.

Shiva @ Shivnarayan Bhondaprasad Keskar, C/4280 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another

Girdhari Mahaveerprasad Kaithwas, C/1929, Central Prison Amravati,through Her Wife Kanta G Kaithwas Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy, Home Department Mantralaya,Mumbai and Another