Dismissed

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Sept 2016WP/3167/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by a life convict seeking release on furlough. The court held that eligibility requires six months of actual imprisonment after returning from the last furlough, barring immediate release under the amended Rules.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Rule discharged; Petitioner to make fresh application after fulfilling six-month eligibility.

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

jdk 1 9.crwp.3167.16.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3167 OF 2016

¶3

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre ] C/7036, presently lodged in ] Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik ].. Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

..Respondent

¶7

Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State

¶8

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶9

DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

¶10

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

¶11

1 Heard both sides.

¶12

2 The petitioner is a life convict. The prayer of the petitioner is that he be released on furlough. The petitioner preferred an application on 4.2.2016 for furlough, however, the petitioner was told that his application is being `filed' and he should apply again when the right to be

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

jdk 2 9.crwp.3167.16.j.doc

¶15

releas7.crwp.3207.16ed on furlough accrues in his favour. Being aggrieved by this order, this petition has been preferred.

¶16

3 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was released on furlough on 6.5.2016 till 4.6.2016 by order dated 4.4.2016. Rule 3 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 has been amended by Notification dated 1.12.2015. Rule 3(C)(3) of the said Rules states that a prisoner shall become eligible for subsequent releases on furlough after completion of six months of actual imprisonment from the date of last return from furlough. As the petitioner was released on furlough on 6.5.2016 and he returned back to the prison on 4.6.2016, at present, the petitioner is not be eligible to be released on furlough and he will become eligible to be relea7.crwp.3207.16sed on furlough only after he completes six months of actual imprisonment from 4.6.2016. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere and as and when the petitioner completes six months of actual imprisonment from 4.6.2016, he should make a fresh application for being released on furlough.

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

jdk 3 9.crwp.3167.16.j.doc

¶19

4 In view of the above, Rule is discharged. Petition is dismissed.

¶20

5 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.

¶21

6 We quantify legal fees to be paid to the appointed advocate at Rs.2500/-.

¶22

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

¶23

kandarkar

¶24

3 of 3

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Takku Singh S/O Ajit Singh Kalyani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Arjun Balkrishna Sonavane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Chabu Tadvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip @ Babu Bhausaheb Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra