Dismissed

Bandu @ Hemant Yadaoraoji Kothe (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC16 Mar 2016WP/62/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Nagpur Bench dismissed an application challenging the rejection of a furlough leave request. The court upheld the lower order, noting the petitioner's habitual tendency to surrender late after overstaying leave periods, finding no reason for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; fees for appointed counsel fixed at Rs. 1500.

Bandu @ Hemant Yadaoraoji Kothe (in Jail) Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

16.3CWP.62.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2016. ( Bandu @ Hemant Yadaoraoji Kothe .vs. The State of Maharashtra & another)

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Ms. R.V. Ramteke, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner, Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents,

¶7

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶8

DATED : MARCH 16, 2016.

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2015, thereby rejecting his application for being released on furlough. In the impugned order, there is a reference made to the late surrender of the petitioner on earlier occasions, as well as the fact that he was also required to be arrested on three earlier occasions as he had not reported back after expiry of the leave period.

¶10

It is submitted by Ms. R.V. Ramteke, learned Advocate (appointed) for petitioner, that though the petitioner was late in reporting back for serving the sentence, there was no complaint of any breach of peace against the petitioner when he was on furlough leave.

¶11

In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, reference has been made to the fact that on three earlier occasions, the petitioner was required to be arrested for overstaying the period of leave and on two occasions the

¶12

16.3CWP.62.16

¶13

¶14

petitioner had surrendered late by 58 days and 66 days respectively.

¶15

It appears that the petitioner is in the habit of surrendering late on almost every occasion. These facts have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. In this backdrop, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶16

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.1500/-.

¶17

Judge

¶18

Judge

¶19

Bandu @ Hemant Yadaoraoji Kothe (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandu @ Hemant Yadaoraoji Kothe (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur and Another

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

Prabhakar S/O Baburao Dadmal Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Gadchiroli and Another

Shantaram Govindrao Pimple and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Shrirkant S/O Ganeshrao Ingole Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Washim and Another

Smt. Ashabai Wd/O Gulabrao Onkar and Another Vs Smt. Jyoti Wd/O Vijay Onkar and Another

Smt. Ashabai Wd/O Gulabrao Onkar and Another Vs Smt. Jyoti Wd/O Vijay Onkar and Another

Mahendra S/O Namdev Wankhade (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Inspector General Eastern Region, Nagpur and Another