Allowed

Satish Ramchandra Bavbande. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC30 Mar 2016WP/241/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the court directed the State authorities to consider the petitioner, a life convict, for premature release. The judgment applied the amended Rule 16 of the Prison Rules, ensuring the benefit of 14 days extended furlough is granted for periods prior to 23 April 2012.

What did the court decide?

Case of the petitioner to be considered for premature release; remission to be granted in terms of directions specified.

Satish Ramchandra Bavbande. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

crwp24116.doc

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2016

¶5

Satish Ramchandra Bavbande, age: major, occ. Nil, r/o At present Prison, Khule Jilha Karagruh, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶8

2 The Superintendent of Police, Khule Jilha Karagruh, Paithan, District Aurangabad. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Suvidh S. Kulkarni, advocate (appointed) for petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶11

K. L. WADANE, JJ. DATE : 30^th MARCH, 2016.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶13

1 Heard.

¶14

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶15

3 Petitioner, who is a convict, is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and is presently lodged at Open Central Prison, Paithan, since last seven years. Petitioner claims that he has already

¶16

crwp24116.doc

¶17

¶18

completed substantive period of imprisonment and that the respondents-authorities have not considered him eligible for the benefit of amended Rule 16 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959, which has been brought on the Rule book from 23^rd April, 2012. Petitioner claims that in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules, he is entitled to be granted benefit of 14 days extended period of furlough while considering his claim of remission of sentence.

¶19

4 The issue raised in the petition is no more res integra in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish, reported in 2010 AIR(SC) 1690 as well as decision of Division Bench of this Court at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1485/2013 decided on 24^th December, 2013. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish (supra) in paragraph no. 43 of the judgment has observed thus :

¶20

“ The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a lifer for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof.” {emphasis supplied).

¶21

In view of judgment of the Apex Court, the State has to exercise its power of remission by construing it liberally in favour of the convict. If liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the life convict for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof.

¶22

crwp24116.doc

¶23

¶24

5 For the reasons recorded above, we direct that case of the petitioner be considered for premature release. Benefit of amended Rule 16 of the rules shall be given in case of extended period of furlough of 14 days granted prior to 23^rd April, 2012. We, therefore, direct that while considering the claim of petitioner for grant of premature release, remission will have to be granted in terms of the directions specified as above.

¶25

6 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

K.L.WADANE JUDGE

R.M.BORDE

JUDGE

adb/crwp24116

Satish Ramchandra Bavbande. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Ramchandra Bavbande. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamru @ Javed Hanif Lalakhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Maroti Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil S/O. Jagdish Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Jameel Shaikh Hadi. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harish Baburao Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Yeshwant Gavade Vs the State of Maharashtra