Dismissed

Balasaheb Raghunath Gujale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Aug 2016WP/2582/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner convicted of criminal charges sought parole via writ petition after rejection by Divisional Commissioner. Court held statutory appeal remedy available and efficacious, citing precedent. Writ set aside as petitioner failed to exhaust alternate remedy. Petition dismissed and rule discharged.

What did the court decide?

Rule is discharged. Petition stands dismissed. Petitioner is relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal against the order of rejection of parole.

Balasaheb Raghunath Gujale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

jdk 1 2.crwp.2582.16.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2582 OF 2016

¶3

Balasaheb Raghunath Gujle ] C/4659, Age 39 years, ] Occ: Convict ] Presently lodged at Kolhapur ] Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur ].. Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1. The State of Maharashtra	] ]
2. Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Council Hall, Pune-1	] ] ] ]
3. Additional Superintendent of Police Sangli at Sangli	] ] ]
4. Sub-Divisonal Officer,	]
Miraj Division, Dist. Sangli	] ]
5. Police Inspector,	]
Miraj Police Station, Miraj, Sangli	].. Respondents

¶6

Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State

¶7

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 30, 2016

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:

¶9

1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent,

¶10

matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides.

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

jdk 2 2.crwp.2582.16.j.doc

¶13

2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 4.2.2016. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 21.4.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶14

3 The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected by order dated 21.4.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. Against the order of rejection of application for parole, remedy of appeal has been provided. The petitioner has not exhausted that remedy. The Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal and Ors. Vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dubri reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419 has observed that when there is an alternate efficacious remedy, a writ petition should not be entertained. In view of the fact that there is an alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal against the order of rejection of parole the petitioner is relegated to that remedy. In case the petitioner prefers an appeal, the said appeal to be decided on merits as expeditiously as possible. In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant parole, hence, Rule is discharged. Petition stands dismissed.

¶15

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]

¶16

2 of 2

¶17

Kandarkar

Balasaheb Raghunath Gujale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Raghunath Gujale 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav @ Pintya Bharat Mane Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Shankar Mangilal Rawal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Pavalas Pakhre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwas Nathu Sase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jaswant Chatur Nai and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.