Allowed

Arun Shankar Ramlingam Naidu v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Mar 2016WP/2585/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed Criminal Applications seeking release of a petitioner from Nashik Road Central Prison on furlough by reducing the surety requirement to one individual providing a bond of Rs.5,000/-, based on the petitioner's good conduct and punctual reporting on previous furloughs. A prayer to execute bonds outside jail was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and Criminal Applications No.110 of 2016, 111 of 2016 and 115 of 2016 allowed to release petitioner on furlough with one surety of Rs.5,000/-.

Arun Shankar Ramlingam Naidu Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

5_wp_2585 _13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2585 OF 2013 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.109 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2585 OF 2013 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2585 OF 2013 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2585 OF 2013 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.115 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2585 OF 2013

¶5

Arun Shankar Ramlingam Naidu

¶6

...Petitioner/Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate appointed for the Applicant. Smt. V.R. Bhonsale, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶11

CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ

¶12

DATED: 15th March, 2016

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

Heard both the sides.

¶15

The Petitioner/Applicant was granted furlough but he

¶16

Megha

¶17

1/3

¶18

5_wp_2585 _13

¶19

was to be released on furlough on the condition that he furnishes personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one surety shall be a relative of the Petitioner/Applicant and other surety shall not be a relative of the Petitioner/Applicant.

¶20

The prayer of the Applicant in Criminal Application No.110 of 2016 is that he be released on furlough on furnishing one surety only. The prayer of the Applicant in Criminal Application Nos.111 of 2016 and 115 of 2016 is that the Applicant be released on furlough on furnishing one surety only in the sum of Rs.5,000/-.

¶21

It is seen that when the Applicant was released on furlough on 24.10.2011, he reported back to the prison in time. So also on 7.8.2012 when the Petitioner was released on furlough, he reported back to the prison in time. Looking to this fact and the fact that the conduct of the Petitioner in jail has been good, we are inclined to grant all the prayers of the Petitioner in Criminal Application Nos.110 of 2016, 111 of 2016 and 115 of 2016 that he be released on furlough on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.5,000/-.

¶22

The prayer of the Applicant in Criminal Application No.109 of 2015 is that instead of executing surety bond papers in the jail, the Applicant be allowed to execute the surety bond Megha 2/3

¶23

2/3

¶24

5_wp_2585 _13

¶25

papers in the police station. We are not inclined to grant the said prayer. The Applicant shall furnish the surety bond as per the usual terms and conditions when a person is released on furlough.

¶26

In view of the above, the writ petition No.2585 of 2013 alongwith Criminal Application Nos.110 of 2016, 111 of 2016 and 115 of 2016 are allowed. The Criminal Application No.109 of 2016 is rejected.

¶27

Office to communicate this order to the

¶28

Petitioner/Applicant, who is in Nashik Road Central Prison. Fees be paid to the appointed Advocate as per Rules.

¶29

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.)

¶30

Megha

¶31

3/3

Arun Shankar Ramlingam Naidu v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Shankar Ramlingam Naidu 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

Ramchandra Dattu Mehar (Intervention) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh @ Mendis Govindappa Bovi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rashid @ Jagga Shaukat Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Bajirao Ananda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harish Rama Mandvikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Dagdu Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra