Allowed

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Dec 2015WP/951/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner sought release on furlough by reducing the required surety amount and extending the time to furnish it due to financial hardship. The court directed his release on a Personal Bond of Rs. 2500/- with equal surety, subject to administrative terms.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner be released on furlough on executing a Personal Bond of Rs. 2500/- with surety in the like amount.

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

4a. cri wp 951-14.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2014

¶5

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mrs. Rupali Manik Shinde	Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mrs. V.R. Bhonsale	APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶13

DATE : DECEMBER 1, 2015.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶17

The petitioner has prayed that he be released on

¶18

furlough on personal bond or cash surety of Rs. 2000/instead of surety and that respondent No. 2 be directed not

¶19

to forfeit the petitioner's furlough leave as the petitioner had

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶21

4a. cri wp 951-14.doc

¶22

not availed the same. The petitioner has preferred Criminal Application No. 146 of 2015 wherein he has stated that furlough has been granted to him, however he could not furnish the required surety in time, hence, time to furnish surety be extended.

¶23

The application for furlough was made by the petitioner. The said application came to be allowed by order dated 4.7.2014. The petitioner was unable to furnish the surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- which was the condition imposed on him. The applicant then made a request to respondent No. 2 for granting additional time for furnishing surety and respondent No. 2 i.e Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra by letter dated 24.9.2014 reduced the surety amount to Rs. 7000/- and granted time till 3.11.2014 for furnishing surety, however, yet the petitioner was not able to furnish surety due to financial hardship, hence, the petitioner could not avail the furlough leave.

¶24

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶25

4a. cri wp 951-14.doc

¶26

It is an admitted fact that earlier the petitioner has

¶27

been released on furlough on one occasion and on parole on one occasion and on both the occasions, he has himself

¶28

reported back to the prison.

¶29

Looking to the above facts, we are inclined to direct

¶30

that the petitioner be released on furlough on executing P.R.

¶31

Bond of Rs. 2500/- with surety in the like amount subject to the condition imposed on him by the concerned Authority

¶32

while granting furlough.

¶33

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶34

Fees be paid to the appointed Advocate as per rules.

¶35

The order be communicated to the petitioner who is in

¶36

Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba.

¶37

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶38

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble 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

Ashok Shankar Khalse Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pintu @ Maruti Dattatray Harihar Vs Division Commissioner of Police and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravi Bhauraya Kolule and Ors.

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble Vs Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble