Allowed

Ramesh Gangaram Sonkamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 May 2016WP/233/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition seeking release on furlough for a prisoner. Despite an adverse police report fearing a breach of peace, the Court directed the respondents to grant furlough subject to specific conditions regarding residence and police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Adverse orders rejecting furlough application quashed; respondents directed to allow furlough subject to conditions of residence in Biloli taluka and police reporting.

Ramesh Gangaram Sonkamble Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

criwp233.16.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2016

¶5

Ramesh s/o Gangaram Sonkamble age 43 years, occ. Nil r/o Prison no.9630, Central Jail, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr. H.I. Pathan, amicus curiae (appointed) for petitioner. Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, APP for the State.

¶9

=====

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & P.R. BORA, JJ. DATE : 4^th MAY, 2016.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.

¶13

Application tendered by petitioner for his release on furlough has been turned down by the Deputy Inspector General, Aurangabad which order has been confirmed by the Inspector General (Jail), Maharashtra State, Pune. Reason for rejection of the request is attributable to the adverse report forwarded by the local police. It is recorded by the SubInspector, Mukhed police station that since the victim also resides at village Undri, Tq. Mukhed, it is not desirable to release the petitioner and permit

¶14

criwp233.16.doc

¶15

¶16

him to enter the boundaries of the village. Presence of petitioner in the village would likely lead to breach of peace.

¶17

Petitioner was arrested in connection with crime on 22.08.2013 and has been sentenced to imprisonment of seven years by order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 18.01.2014. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough since he has completed the requisite jail term. It also cannot be controverted that to avail furlough leave is the right of the prisoner and the same cannot be denied unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice. Petitioner can be released subject to imposition of certain reasonable conditions which would take care of the apprehension expressed by the local police as regards breach of peace in the village. It is informed that petitioner is willing to stay at Kinala, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded and, his brother-in-law has agreed to furnish surety on his behalf. Petitioner thus can be granted furlough leave subject to condition that he shall continue to stay during the period of his release within the boundaries of Biloli taluka and shall report to police station Biloli as and when directed by the jail authorities.

¶18

For the reasons recorded above, writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to allow application tendered by petitioner praying for his release on furlough subject to reasonable conditions as permissible in law. Adverse orders passed by the authorities rejecting request of petitioner for his release on furlough are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶19

criwp233.16.doc

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court shall be paid remuneration quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.

¶22

( P. R. BORA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb

Ramesh Gangaram Sonkamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Gangaram Sonkamble 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

Sharad Laxmanrao Dahatonde Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prakash Sahebrao Mairal and Other Vs Vimalbai Prakash Mairal and Anr.

Laxaman Ziparu Thosare. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrikrishna Mahadeo Pedam. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Dnyaneshwar S/O. Kisan Baraskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Govind S/O. Shivnarayan Gattani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.