Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Vasant Sitaram Pawar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

Home
Bombay HC
2016
Vasant Sitaram Pawar Vs the State of MaharashtraVasant Sitaram Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Dismissed

Vasant Sitaram Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Apr 2016WP/334/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a criminal writ petition seeking release on furlough for a prison petitioner due to non-compliance with parole rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition stands rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court held that an application for furlough was rightly rejected as the petitioner had not completed six months of imprisonment after his earlier parole, violating Rule 19 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

criwp334.16.doc

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 334 OF 2016

Vasant Sitaram Pawar .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENT

Petitioner through Open Prison, Paithan. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the State.

=====

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K. L. WADANE, JJ. DATE : 2^nd APRIL, 2016.

PER COURT :

Petitioner is praying for his release on furlough with a view to attend marriage of his son which is scheduled today i.e. 02.04.2016. Application has been rejected on the ground that petitioner was earlier released on parole on 11.11.2015 and has reported at prison on 11.12.2015. Since the petitioner has not completed a period of imprisonment of six months after his earlier release, his application has been turned down.

Rule 19 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 provide that a prisoner shall not be released on parole for the period of one year after the expiry of his last parole except in case of death of his nearest relatives mentioned in the aforesaid rules.

In the instant matter, since the time gap between earlier release and the instant application is not within prescription of the rules, application

criwp334.16.doc

2

has been rightly turned down by the authorities. There is no merit in the

petition. Writ petition stands rejected.

( K. L. WADANE ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

dyb

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Vasant Sitaram Pawar
respondent
The State of Maharashtra

Coram

AI extract

R.M. Borde
K. L. Wadane

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 2 Apr 2016 · April
Registered: 2 Mar 2016
Case no.: WP/334/2016
CNR: HCBM030088202016
Topic: Pension and Retirement Benefits
Bench: R. M. Borde K.l. Wadane
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R. M. Borde K.l. Wadane

Navnath Pandharinath Lodhe. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.
1 Apr 2016
Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Ibrahim Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
31 Mar 2016
Kadar Lalkha Tadvi Vs the State of Maharashtra
31 Mar 2016
Sudhir Haribhau Babar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.
2 Apr 2016
Urmila W/O Suresh Suryawanshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra
2 Apr 2016
Rameshwar S/O. Tukaram Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.
2 Apr 2016

Cite this judgement

Vasant Sitaram Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra, WP/334/2016 (BOM), decided on 2 April 2016.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

R.M. Borde and K. L. Wadane

Parties & counsel