Allowed

Kashiram @ Pintaya Rama Salunkhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2016WP/332/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a criminal writ petition seeking release on furlough. The petitioner, serving over 10 years, could not furnish surety bonds from relatives. Relying on a Full Bench judgment, the Court directed the respondents to release him on furlough contingent on executing a bond and furnishing cash security from funds lying with jail authorities.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to release the petitioner on furlough on execution of P.R. bond and furnishing cash security from jail funds within four weeks.

Kashiram @ Pintaya Rama Salunkhe Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Cr.WP 332/16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.332/2016

¶5

Kashiram @ Pintyya Rama Salunke,
Convict No.C-130, age major,
occu.nil, presently in jail Visapur,
Open District Prison, Visapur.
Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of District Open Prison, Visapur. Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶9

2] Inspector General of Prisons, Western Division, Pune.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri Swapnil B. Joshi, Advocate appointed for petitioner.
Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 18.04.2016

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Borde, J.)

¶16

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.

¶17

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
petition is taken for final disposal at the admission
stage.

¶18

Cr.WP 332/16

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

2]The petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ
directing the respondents to release him on furlough by
executing P.R. Bond and on cash security. The petitioner
tendered an application for release on furlough, which
was not considered earlier. As such, he approached this
Court by way of presenting Criminal Writ Petition
No.291/2015. A direction was issued by this Court while
disposing of said petition to take decision on the
application tendered by the petitioner for his release on
furlough expeditiously. The petitioner was directed to
submit surety of his near relation to ensure his return
back to the prison. Since the petitioner was not in a
position to furnish surety, his application has not been
considered favourably.

¶21

3]Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
informs that the petitioner has actually undergone
imprisonment for a period of more than 10 years, whereas
he has earned remission for 4 years 1 month and 5 days.
The total period of imprisonment as such until April,

¶22

2016, is 14 years 8 months and 4 days. The petitioner

¶23

was never released on furlough any time prior to
presentation of the instant petition. It is the

¶24

Cr.WP 332/16

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

petitioner that merely because he is not in a position to
furnish surety of his near relation, his application
cannot be turned down.

¶27

4] Reliance is placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court dated 4.5.2011 in the matter of Dipak Sudhakar Wakalekar v. State of Maharashtra & others reported at 2011 CRI.L.J. 3263 . The issue referred for consideration to the Full Bench was as to whether as per proviso to Rule 6 of The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, a convict confined in open prison, can be released on parole / furlough by the authorities by dispensing with the requirement of execution of bond by the relatives. The Full Bench has opined that in

¶28

view of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules, 1959, a convict
confined in open prison can be released on furlough by
the Sanctioning Authority by dispensing with the
requirement of execution of bond by the relatives.

¶29

5]In view of the decision of the Full Bench
referred to above, there shall be no impediment for
consideration of the application tendered by the
petitioner favourably for his release on furlough without
insisting for execution of surety bond by his relatives.

¶30

Cr.WP 332/16

¶31

- 4 -

¶32

Since the petitioner is already in jail for more than 10
years, it shall be presumed that he must have earned some
amount, which must have been deposited in his account.

¶33

The petitioner in these circumstances can be directed to
execute a P.R. bond and also furnish cash security, since
the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to, is
lying with the jail authorities.

¶34

6]In view of above, we direct the respondents to
release the petitioner on furlough on execution of the
P.R. Bond as well as on condition of furnishing cash
security (in the sum of the amount, which is already
lying with the jail authorities) as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of four weeks
from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶35

7] Shri Swapnil Joshi, learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae in the matter shall be paid legal remuneration of Rs.5,000/-.

¶36

ndk/ cr1841620.doc

Kashiram @ Pintaya Rama Salunkhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashiram @ Pintaya Rama Salunkhe 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

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

Mohd. Majlum Dost Miyan Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bala Vastad Digambar Shitole Vs the State of Maharashtra

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