High Court clarified that a directive requiring execution of a cash surety bond was erroneous and contrary to a prior order. It granted the petitioner furlough upon executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000.
Petitioner granted furlough leave upon executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000; erroneous direction for cash surety bond quashed.
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.
19.WP.529.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 529 OF 2016
Ramu Appa Mahapatre (C-182) ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
Smt. Vidya S. Narale, Advocate appointed for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for respondent.
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED : 13th JUNE, 2016
ORDER :
1 / 2
19.WP.529.16.doc
for Rs.25,000/- only with other usual conditions. Because of specific order directing the petitioner 'to execute a Cash Surety Bond', an impression is created that the petitioner was under obligation to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- as surety.
SSD
2 / 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an erroneous direction in the impugned order requiring execution of a cash surety bond defeats a prior order granting furlough on execution of a personal bond?
Ramu Appa Mahapatre
State of Maharashtra
A.V. NIRGUDE
A.I.S. CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
