Remanded

Mahendra Digambarrao Deshmukh, C.No. 4386, Open Prison Paithan v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC28 Feb 2012WP/52/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that delaying the disposal of a parole extension application due to administrative lags or delayed police reports is unjustifiable. The Court quashed the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within two weeks, directing authorities to issue instructions for prompt processing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Divisional Commissioner for fresh order within two weeks.

Mahendra Digambarrao Deshmukh, C.No. 4386, Open Prison… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 Cri. WP 52 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.52 of 2012

¶4

Mahendra Digambarrao Deshmukh, Prisoner, R/o Open District Prison, Paithan, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

1. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶8

1. The Superintendent of Prison, Open Prison, Paithan.

¶9

1. Superintendent of Police Amravati (Gramin)

¶10

1. Shri Rao Saheb Local Crime Branch, Amravati. .. Respondents.

¶11

Smt. Priyanka U. Sawaji, Advocate, appointed for petitioner.

¶12

Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondents.

¶13

2 Cri. WP 52 of 2012

¶14

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

¶15

DATE 28^th FEBRUARY 2012

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil, J.) :-

¶17

Heard.

¶18

Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally.

¶19

The petitioner is a life convict presently lodged in Open Prison, Paithan. He applied for parole. The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad released the petitioner on parole on 19^th December 2011 for a period of one month. The petitioner was to surrender on or before 18^th January 2012. As the petitioner found that, his daughter required immediate medical attention he applied for extension of parole for a period of further one month on 22^nd December 2011. The application was sent

¶20

to the office of the Divisional Commissioner by fax. It is submitted that, copy of the application was forwarded by the office of the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad to the Superintendent of Police Amravati for calling police

¶21

3 Cri. WP 52 of 2012

¶22

report. The application was forwarded by post on 23^rd December 2011 and was sent by Fax on 25^th December 2011.

¶23

It is submitted that the police forwarded the report to the office of the Divisional Commissioner Amravati on 4^th February 2012 which reached the office of the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad on 17^th February 2012. However, the Divisional Commissioner passed the order on 23^rd January 2012 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the police report did not reach the Divisional Commissioner by 18^th January 2012.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the delay occurred in forwarding the application from the office of the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad to the Superintendent of Police and the receipt of the report from the Superintendent of Police to the Divisional Commissioner cannot be a ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner. The petitioner filed application promptly which was received by the

¶25

4 Cri. WP 52 of 2012

¶26

office of the Divisional Commissioner on the same day. The petitioner’s request ought not to have been rejected on the ground of delay on the part of the authorities in getting police report promptly and forwarding it to the appropriate authorities in time.

¶27

Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent No.4 through Pratapsing S/o Narayansing Daberao, Assistant Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Amravati (Rural). In paragraphs 3 and 5 the deponent contends thus :

¶28

“ 3. I say that, the said letter has been received by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Amravati on 3-1-2012. The office of the Superintendent of Police, Amravati has forwarded the said letter to the Crime Branch on 6-1-2012 and thereafter the said crime branch has also forwarded the letter to the concern police station on 10-1-2012 i.e. Police Station, Pathrud.

¶29

5. I say that, after scrutiny of the police report, submitted by the police to the Local Crime Branch, the said report has been submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Amravati for scrutiny and order. After scrutiny of the said report, the Superintendent of Police, has submitted the report to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad by letter dated 24-1-2012. Copy of the said letter dated 24-1-2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit R-1.”

¶30

5 Cri. WP 52 of 2012

¶31

In the case of Prabhu Babu Chaware v. State of Maharashtra, 2008(4) AIR Bom R. 563, the Division Bench, of which one of us – Justice Naresh H Patil was a Member, has made observations for taking prompt action in respect of requests made by convicts for extension of parole. The Division Bench has observed in paragraphs 11,12 and 13 thus :--

¶32

“ 11 . We have noticed in some matters that certain delay has occurred in processing applications of prisoners in the matters of parole or furlough leave. We find that the concerned authorities shall devise appropriate mechanism to screen such applications effectively and diligently, so that the requests made by the prisoners are attended to within reasonable time frame. It is true that in certain cases minute inquiries are required to be made so that the purpose of law is not frustrated.

¶33

12 . In the facts of this case, we are not inclined to award any damages to the petitioner, but certainly we would like the concerned Divisional Commissioners of the State to put into effect appropriate mechanism in the shape of orders and circulars, so that such incidents do not occur repeatedly and the applications filed by the prisoners are attended to at the earliest.

¶34

13. We observe that all the Divisional Commissioners and the Superintendents of Police in the State of Maharashtra, shall consider forwarding of the communication in this regard from the offices of the Divisional Commissioner to the Superintendent of Police and from Superintendent of Police to the Divisional Commissioner, on Fax, E-mail, etc., so that the stipulated time frame as envisaged in the circulars issued by the State Government through its Home Department is adhered to.”

¶35

6 Cri. WP 52 of 2012

¶36

In spite of the same, we do find that delays are occurring in calling police reports and communications from the police authorities to the Divisional Commissionorates. In the result, purpose of the observations and directions of this Court is frustrated which causes lot of inconvenience to the convicts, increase in the litigations and possible tendencies of the convicts to overstay the leave period.

¶37

In the facts of the case, we are constrained to remand the matter back to the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad for proper consideration of the matter and for passing fresh order in view of the peculiar factual background of this case.

¶38

The order dated 23-1-2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of extension of parole is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶39

We direct the Divisional Commissioner to issue appropriate instructions in respect of dealing with

¶40

7 Cri. WP 52 of 2012

¶41

applications for extension of leave, promptly, in future. We direct the Divisional Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner for extension of parole within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.

¶42

We direct the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and the Commissionorate of Police, Aurangabad to issue appropriate instructions in this regard in view of the observations made by us as above.

¶43

The Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, for issuing appropriate instructions in the light of the observations made by us in this order.

¶44

Rule is partly made absolute. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub Committee Aurangabad to pay professional fees to the counsel as per rules.

¶45

Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶46

rsl

Mahendra Digambarrao Deshmukh, C.No. 4386, Open Prison Paithan v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Digambarrao Deshmukh, C.No. 4386, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhujang Mahdu Panpatte Vs the State of Mah

Gajanan Haribhau Voyvahare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhagwan Malhari Bangar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sachin Suresh Choudhari and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunita Suresh Choudhari

Rajkumar Khaini Raghuveersingh Khaini @ Swami Raj and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.