Allowed

Ratu Alias Ratnakar Shamrao Kale. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC6 Apr 2016WP/242/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to consider an extended period of furlough granted before the amendment to Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Prisons Rules, 1959, as remission of sentence, relying on a previous Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted: Petitioner to be considered for premature release and extended furlough period anterior to 23.4.2012 counted towards remission of sentence under amended Rule 16.

Ratu Alias Ratnakar Shamrao Kale. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cr wp 242.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.242 OF 2016

¶5

Ratu @ Ratnakar S/o Shamrao Kale Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and other Respondents

¶6

Mr.A.A. Nimbalkar advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for Respondents

¶7

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J & K.L. WADANE, JJ (Date : 6^th APRIL, 2016.)

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

1] The only prayer that needs to be considered is in respect of issuance of directions to the respondent authorities to consider computation of period in respect of availment of furlough granted to the petitioner for an ex tended period of 14 days referable to the period anterior to the date of enforcement of the amendment to Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Amendment Rules, 1959.

¶10

2] By virtue of amendment incorporated in Rule 16, it

¶11

{2} cr wp 242.16.odt

¶12

is prescribed that the furlough period shall be counted as remission of sentence. The amendment is enforced since 23.4.2012. The prison authorities have refused to grant the benefit of the amendment in respect of grant of furlough for a period anterior to the enforcement of amended provisions of the Rules while computing the period in respect of remission of sentence of the petitioner.

¶13

3] The Division Bench of this Court at Bombay while dealing with Writ Petition No. 1485/2013 in the matter of Jagannath Raghunath Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra & others decided on 24.1.22013 issued directions to the respondent authorities that the petitioner therein be considered for grant of premature release and the remission shall have to be granted in terms of the judgment. It is observed in paragraph no.13 of the said judgment that when a case of life convict is considered for premature release on or after 23.4.2012, the benefit of amended Rule 16 of the said Rules will have to be given even in case of the extended period of furlough of 14 days granted prior to 23.4.2012.

¶14

{3} cr wp 242.16.odt

¶15

4] In view of the judgment, as cited above, the identical relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant petition also deserves to be granted and it is accordingly being granted.

¶16

5] The petitioner shall be granted similar benefits and be considered for premature release on considering his claim for remission in sentence in terms of the amended Rule 16 and the benefit shall be given in respect of the period anterior to 23.4.2012 also.

¶17

6] Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(K.L. WADANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶19

vbd

Ratu Alias Ratnakar Shamrao Kale. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratu Alias Ratnakar Shamrao Kale. 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

Ashok S/O Pundlikrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Mehboob Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaurao S/O. Suryabhan Nage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chhayabai W/O Pundalik Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Mumtaz Shaikh Ismaile Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Sainath S/O. Ramrao Thombre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others