Disposed

Bharat S/O Vishnu Pandhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Dec 2016WP/1323/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court did not grant relief on merits but directed the respondent prison authorities to reconsider the petitioner's applications for permanent and temporary transfers to Yerwada or Thane Open Prisons within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's transfer request to Yerwada or Thane Open Prison within six weeks.

Bharat S/O Vishnu Pandhare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1323.2016CriWP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1323 OF 2016

¶5

Bharat s/o. Vishnu Pandhare,
Age: 39 Years, Occu: Nil Convict No.141,
R/o. at Chal No.15, Room No.E-35,
G.T.B. Nagar Panjabi
Camp Antop Hill, Mumbai
At present in Open Prison Visapur,
Dist. Ahmednagar. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶8

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, West Division Yerawada, Pune.

¶9

3. The Superintendent of Open Prison, Yerawada, Pune.

¶10

4. The Superintendent of Open Prison, Visapur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mrs.Bharti B. Gunjal, Advocate for the
petitioner
Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for Respondent – State

¶14

...

¶15

K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.

¶16

Reserved on : 16.12.2016
 Pronounced on : 19.12.2016

¶17

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶18

1.Heard.

¶19

1323.2016CriWP.odt

¶20

¶21

2. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶22

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶23

3.By way of filing present Writ

¶24

Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged the correctness and legality of
the orders passed by respondent No.2 dated
10.12.2015 and 16.08.2016.

¶25

4.The learned counsel appearing for

¶26

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in
Open Prison at Visapur, District Ahmednagar.

¶27

He has undergone 18 years, 1 month and 4 days
sentence, including remission on the date of
filing of this Petition. It is submitted that

¶28

the father of the petitioner is residing at
Mumbai, and therefore, due to long distance
between Visapur Open Prison and Mumbai, the
relatives of the petitioner are not able to

¶29

1323.2016CriWP.odt

¶30

¶31

meet him. The age of father of the petitioner
is 83 years. He is not keeping well.

¶32

5.It is submitted that the petitioner
filed application for his transfer to Open
Prison Yerwada or Open Prison Thane, however,
request to transfer him in Open Prison
Yerwada or Open Prison Thane has been turned
down. It is further submitted that the report
submitted to respondent no.2 shows that the
capacity to accommodate the convict/prisoner

¶33

in Yerwada Prison is 172 and it appears that
there are only 153 prisoners. Therefore,
relying upon the pleadings in the Petition,
annexures thereto and also rejoinder-
affidavit and affidavit-in-reply filed by the
respondents, the learned counsel appearing

¶34

for the petitioner submits that the petition
deserves to be allowed.

¶35

6.Pursuant to the notices issued to

¶36

the respondents, one Mr. Dattatraya Ganpat

¶37

1323.2016CriWP.odt

¶38

¶39

Gawade has filed affidavit-in-reply. It is
stated in the said affidavit-in-reply that
pursuant to the order passed by the
Additional Director General of Police and the
Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra

¶40

State, Pune, the petitioner came to be
transferred from Kolhapur Central Prison to

¶41

Visapur Open District Prison on 2nd March,
2014, for undergoing the remaining portion of
his sentence. Till 25th November, 2016, he has

¶42

undergone 19 years, 7 months and 20 days
sentence including remission. The application

¶43

of the petitioner is forwarded to Yerwada

¶44

Open Prison, Pune and Thane Open Prison to

¶45

the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Western Region, Pune along with home enquiry
report and recommendations.

¶46

7.It is further submitted that the

¶47

Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Western

¶48

Region, Pune by his order bearing
No.JC/Prisoner transfer/166/15/BVP/7114/2015,

¶49

¶50

1323.2016CriWP.odt

¶51

WR 4 (1) dated 10.12.2015 rejected the
application of the petitioner, seeking a
permanent transfer to Yerwada Open Prison,
Pune, on the ground that the Superintendent
of Yerwada Open Prison had stated that there
is no vacant place to accommodate the
petitioner.

¶52

8.It is further submitted that the

¶53

Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Western
Region, Pune by his order bearing No.
JC/Prisoner transfer/166/15/BVP/689/2015, WR

¶54

4 (1) dated 02.02.2016 rejected the
application of the petitioner seeking
permanent prison transfer to Thane Open
Prison on the ground that the Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons, Southern
Region, Byculla, Mumbai had stated that there

¶55

was no vacant place for accommodating the
petitioner in Thane Open Prison.

¶56

9.It is further submitted that the

¶57

1323.2016CriWP.odt

¶58

¶59

respondent no.4 forwarded the application of
the petitioner for temporary transfer to
Thane Open Prison for the purpose of meeting
his family members, to the Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons, Western Region, Pune
along with the home enquiry report and
recommendations.

¶60

10.It is further submitted that the

¶61

Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Western
Region, Pune by his order bearing No.
JC/Prisoner transfer/31/16/BVP/4445/2016, WR
4 (1) dated 16.08.2016 rejected the
application of the petitioner seeking

¶62

temporary transfer to Thane Open Prison on
the ground that the Deputy Inspector General
of Prisons, Southern Region, Byculla, Mumbai,
had stated that there is no sufficient place
for accommodating new prisoners in Thane Open
Prison, Thane.

¶63

11.The sum and substance of the

¶64

1323.2016CriWP.odt

¶65

¶66

contention of the respondents is that there
is no sufficient space to accommodate the
petitioner in Yerwada Open Prison and also in
Thane Open Prison.

¶67

12.It is assertion of the petitioner

¶68

that in Yerwada Prison, there are only 153
prisoners and there is space to accommodate
another 19 prisoners. As contended by the
petitioner, the total capacity of Yerwada
Prison to accommodate the prisoners is 172,

¶69

and therefore, the reasons assigned in the
impugned order are contrary to the record.

¶70

13.Be that as it may, we are not

¶71

inclined to issue any mandatory directions to

¶72

the respondents, however, in our opinion the

¶73

ends of justice would be met if the
respondent authorities are directed to
reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for
his transfer either in Yerwada Open Prison or
Thane Open Prison as the case may be, keeping

¶74

1323.2016CriWP.odt

¶75

¶76

in view the current availability of the
vacancies / space in the said Jail and
relevant Government policy to transfer of
prisoner from one prison to another prison.

¶77

14.In that view of the matter, without
entering into the correctness of the order
passed by the respondents, we direct
respondents to consider the request of the
petitioner afresh for his transfer to either
in Yerwada Open Prison or Thane Open Prison,
as the case may be, on its own merits, as
expeditiously as possible, however, within 6
weeks from today and communicate the said
decision to the petitioner.

¶78

15.Rule is made absolute in the above
terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶79

 Sd/-

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

 [K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶82

DDC

Bharat S/O Vishnu Pandhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat S/O Vishnu Pandhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Rajendrasingh S/O Jogindarsingh Nambardar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Motiram S/O Tulshiram Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan S/O Ramchandra Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Keshav S/O Tuljaram Salampure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

1 Dadasabeb S/O Nana Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad S/O Vitthalrao Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others