Quashed

Rajaram Shripati Banduke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Sept 2016WP/990/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A life convict sought furlough on personal bond without surety. The High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to reconsider the request within 8 weeks, distinguishing the case based on the convict's location in Central Prison.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.05.2016 quashed; respondent directed to reconsider furlough request on personal bond without surety within 8 weeks.

Rajaram Shripati Banduke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

990.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.990 OF 2016

¶5

Rajaram s/o. Shripati Banduke,
Age: 61 year, Occu: Nil
Prisoner Convict No.7147,
R/o. At Kudaj, Tal.Shehgaon,
Dist. Hingoli
At present in Central Prison
at Aurangabad.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶9

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Aurangabad

¶10

3. The Superintendent of Police, Hingoli (Rural), District Hingoli.

¶11

4. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mrs.B.B.Gunjal, Advocate (Appointed) for the
petitioner.

¶14

Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for Respondent/State.

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶17

 SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.

¶18

Reserved on : 19.09.2016
 Pronounced on : 22.09.2016

¶19

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶20

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶21

990.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶22

¶23

forthwith and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶24

2.This Petition takes exception to the
letter/order dated 24.05.2016 issued by
respondent no.2. The petitioner further seeks
direction to respondent no.2 to release the
petitioner on furlough leave on his personal
bond.

¶25

3.The petitioner is undergoing the
sentence of the life imprisonment in Central
Prison at Aurangabad. He applied for furlough

¶26

on 05.05.2016 before respondent no.2.
Respondent no.3 sent an adverse report to
respondent no.2 on 13.05.2016, mentioning
therein that nobody is ready to stand as
surety to the petitioner. Respondent no.2
rejected the application of the petitioner
for grant of furlough. Hence this Petition.

¶27

4.The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that when the convict

¶28

990.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶29

¶30

is not able to furnish surety, the authority has discretion to release him on executing personal bond. In support of the said contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of Dipak Sudhakar Wakelekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.¹ and Natia Jiria Vs. State of Gujrat and others² .

¶31

5.On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for the respondent – State submits
that the Authority has discretion to consider
the prayer to release the convict undergoing
the sentence in Open Prison on furlough on
executing personal bond, however, not in the
case of the convicts, who are undergoing
imprisonment in the Prisons other than Open
Prison.

¶32

6.We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

1 2011 Cri.L.J.3263 2 1984 Cri.L.J.936

¶34

990.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶35

¶36

petitioner and the learned APP appearing for
the respondent – State. It is not in dispute
that since the year 2011 the petitioner is
undergoing imprisonment and he is entitled to
be released on furlough.

¶37

7.The Division Bench of the Bombay

¶38

High Court at Nagpur in the case of Bhimrao Nathuji Bhoyar Vs. Superintendent, Amravati Central Prison, Amravati³ keeping in view the facts of that case directed respondent authorities to release the petitioner therein on furlough on his executing a personal bond without insisting for furnishing surety relying upon the Full Bench decision of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Natia Jiria

¶39

Vs. State of Gujrat and others (cited supra) . It is true that in that case though the order was passed by the Competent Authority on 5 occasions to release the petitioner on furlough, he could not avail of the same due

¶40

3 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 567

¶41

990.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶42

¶43

to his inability to furnish surety. However,
the fact remains that the petitioner therein
was undergoing sentence in Central Prison,
Amravati. Therefore, we are of the opinion
that the case of the petitioner herein
deserves to be considered afresh by
respondent no.2. In the circumstances, the
impugned letter/order dated 24.05.2016 stands
quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 is
directed to reconsider the request of the
petitioner to release him on furlough on his
executing personal bond only without surety,
as expeditiously as possible, however, within
8 weeks from today.

¶44

8.Rule is made absolute in above

¶45

terms. Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed
of accordingly.

¶46

9.Since, Mrs.B.B.Gunjal, the learned

¶47

counsel is appointed as amicus curie to
prosecute the cause of the petitioner, her

¶48

990.2016Cri.WP.odt

¶49

¶50

fees be paid as per the schedule of fees
maintained by the High Court Legal Services
Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶51

 Sd/- Sd/-
 [SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶52

DDC

Rajaram Shripati Banduke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Shripati Banduke 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azadsinh @ Shambhuraj S/O. Mohanrao Khalate and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganpat S/O Shamrao Lokare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr Sandeep S/O Manchakrao Malve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Maheboob Vs the State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra Vs Rajendrasingh Bhagwansingh Babri and Others

Krishna S/O Daulat Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.