Disposed

Mohd. Majlum Dost Miyan Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2016WP/331/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition filed for furlough and release without surety, the Court held that given the pending proposal for the petitioner's permanent premature release, immediate interim release was not desirable. However, the authorities were directed to decide on the premature release proposal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State Government to decide on the proposal for premature release of the petitioner within two months; criminal writ petition disposed of.

Mohd. Majlum Dost Miyan Ansari Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Cr.WP 331/16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.331/2016

¶6

Mohd.Majlum Dost Miyan Ansari (C-172)

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra.
...Respondent...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Smt.S.K. Doke, Advocate appointed for petitioner.
Shri S.J. Salgare, APP for respondent.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 18.04.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]The application tendered by the petitioner for grant

¶17

of furlough and his release on execution of P.R. bond and

¶18

cash security, and without insisting for furnishing

¶19

surety of his relatives, has not been favourably

¶20

considered by the authorities and it is insisted by the
authorities that the petitioner shall furnish the surety
bond of his near relation.

¶21

Cr.WP 331/16

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

2]Learned APP, on instructions, informs that the

¶24

petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for about 13
years and he is entitled for remission for a period of 5

¶25

years 4 months and 11 days. The total period of
imprisonment suffered by the petitioner is 18 years 1
month and 30 days. It is further informed that the

¶26

petitioner has been categorized as Category 4A prisoner
and is liable to be released on completion of 19 years of
imprisonment. It is informed that the petitioner is
likely to be released from jail on 30.10.2016. A
proposal for premature release of the petitioner has

¶27

already been tendered to the State Government on
22.7.2015 and the same is under consideration. The

¶28

petitioner hails from the State of Jharkhand and as such
the authorities are apprehensive of the petitioner's
return to prison after completion of furlough leave.

¶29

3]In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, since the petitioner is likely to be released

¶30

permanently on 3.10.2016 in furtherance of the proposal

¶31

forwarded to the State Government on 22.7.2015, it is not

¶32

desirable to direct release of the petitioner at this

¶33

stage. The State Government, however, needs to be

¶34

Cr.WP 331/16

¶35

directed to take decision on the proposal tendered by the
authorities on 22.7.2015 for premature release of the
petitioner from jail as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of two months from today. It
is accordingly directed. The criminal writ petition is
disposed of.

¶36

4] Smt.S.K. Doke, learned Advocate appointed as amicus curiae shall be paid legal remuneration of Rs.5,000/-.

¶37

 (K.L. WADANE, J.)

¶38

ndk/ cr1841616.doc

Mohd. Majlum Dost Miyan Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Majlum Dost Miyan Ansari 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

Kailas Shankar Navekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devidas S/O Lokdoji Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Sayyad Haroon S/O Sayyad Rauf Vs Sadiq S/O Babamiya Mulani Inamdar and Other

Kashiram @ Pintaya Rama Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bala Vastad Digambar Shitole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Sayyanna Bakwad, C-4767 Vs the State of Maharashtra