Allowed

Suresh Namdeorao Bankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Jan 2015WP/44/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court recorded a criminal writ petition where the petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting his application for death parole leave. The court, noting the petitioner's unblemished past record and family needs, allowed the prayer. It quashed the impugned order and directed release within two days following prescribed rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.12.2014 quashed; authorities directed to release the petitioner within two days adhering to prescribed rules.

Suresh Namdeorao Bankar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

Cr.WP 44/15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.44/2015

¶6

Suresh s/o Namdeorao Bankar.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri R.S. Mubashir Ali, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.G. Karlekar, APP for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 20.01.2015

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2] This petition is filed with following prayer:-

¶19

"The petitioner prays to quash and set aside
impugned order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the
Respondent No.2 rejecting the application filed by
the Petitioner for seeking death Parole leave for a
period of 30 days and for that purpose issue
necessary orders."

¶20

Cr.WP 44/15

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

3]Learned APP has tendered across Bar affidavit in

¶23

reply. Upon reading the affidavit in reply, it appears
that whenever the petitioner was released on earlier
occasion either on furlough or parole, he reported back
to the jail promptly within time. Therefore, the
petitioner's past record is unblemished.

¶24

4]The grievance of the petitioner is that the mother
of the petitioner has expired and he wishes to attend her
last rites. However, the respondent - authorities have
declined to grant parole on the ground that authenticity
and report is yet to be received from the concerned
Police Station.

¶25

5]The learned APP has placed reliance on the circular
dated 15.5.2002 to refuse the prayer of the petitioner.
6]We have considered the grounds stated in the
petition, annexures thereto and the affidavit in reply
filed by the respondent - authorities. In the peculiar
facts of this case, when the petitioner's past record is
unblemished inasmuch as whenever he was released on
parole or furlough, he reported back promptly within
time, we are inclined to allow the prayer of the
petitioner.

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

7]In the result, the order dated 30.12.2014 is quashed
and set aside. The respondent - authorities are directed
to release the petitioner within two days from today.
However, we make it clear that while releasing the
petitioner, the respondent - authorities shall adhere to
the procedure prescribed under the Rules.

¶28

8]The petition stands disposed of on above terms.

¶29

ndk/ cr20115.doc

Suresh Namdeorao Bankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Namdeorao Bankar v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Gaffar Pashamiyan Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah

Mahaurja Vidhyut Tantric Seva Sahkari Sanstha, Hingoli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sapana Damjibhai Vasava Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sayyad Arbaj Husain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs Narhari S/O Balaji Gutte

1 Mangal S/O Narayan Giri and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.