Allowed

Suresh Raghunath Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2016WP/1914/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition concerned a furlough application rejected on grounds of witness safety and threats to peace. The court observed records showed no adverse incidents during the petitioner's two prior parole periods and granted the furlough on usual terms.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on furlough on usual terms and conditions as set out by the jail authorities.

Suresh Raghunath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

wp.1914.2015_1.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1914 OF 2015

¶5

Suresh Raghunath Patil ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Ms.Farhana Shah for the Petitioner Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP, for Respondent – State

¶7

CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶8

DATE: JULY 21, 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard both sides.

¶11

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶12

The petitioner preferred an application for furlough. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 19.11.2014. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 11.2.2015, hence, this petition.

¶13

The application for furlough came to be rejected on the ground that the witnesses stated that there would be danger to their life if the petitioner is released on furlough. The second ground is that the petitioner is a

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

wp.1914.2015_1.doc

¶16

convict under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act and he belongs to the gang of Arun Gawli. The third ground for rejecting the application for furlough is that if the applicant is released on furlough, there wold be threat to peace and security.

¶17

It is an admitted fact that the co-accused i.e., Arun Gawli has been released on furlough by order dated 2.3.2016. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was released on parole on 24.1.2014 for a period of 30 days. The said parole was extended and the petitioner surrendered on the due date. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on parole on 7.11.2015 for a period of 30 days. The said parole period was extended and the petitioner surrendered back to the prison on the due date. During both the periods that the petitioner was on parole, there is no record that any complaint has been made by the complainant or witnesses that any threat was given to them by the petitioner or anyone on his behalf. So also, no record is brought to our notice that when the petitioner was released on parole, there was any illegal activity committed by the petitioner or that there was any activity due to which there was threat to peace and security. Looking to the fact that when the petitioner was released on parole on two occasions, there was no adverse activity on the part of the petitioner and he has duly returned back to the prison on the due date, we are inclined to grant furlough to the petitioner.

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

wp.1914.2015_1.doc

¶20

The Petitioner be released on furlough on the usual terms and conditions as set out by the jail authorities.

¶21

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶22

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶23

3 / 3

Suresh Raghunath Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Raghunath Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alpana Mohan Mhaske Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Shekhar @ Bhagwan Chandrakant Kajale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash @ Pintya Ashok Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwat Putalya Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chotelal Rambrij Paswan Vs the State of Maharashtra