Allowed

Arvind Arjun Kamble v. the Additional Police Superitendant and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Apr 2017WP/1343/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted a convict to be released on parole for 30 days on the ground of his wife's critical medical condition, observing that no law and order issues or witness threats occurred during a previous furlough. The rejections based on potential danger and law and order were overridden.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on parole for a period of 30 days on the usual terms and conditions as set out by the jail authorities.

Arvind Arjun Kamble Vs the Additional Police… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

jdk 1 6.crwp.1343.17.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1343 OF 2017

¶3

Arvind Arjun Kamble ] Convict No. C/6200 ] Kolhapur Central Prison, Kallamba ] Permanently residing at post ] Karmale, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangli ].. Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Deputy Police Superintendent ] Sangli ] ]

¶6

Divisional Commissioner, ] General Administrative Deptt. ] Vidhan Bhavan, Pune-1 ] ]

¶7

Under Secretary, Home Deptt. ] Home Deptt. Jail-3, Mantralaya, ] Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai-32 ]..Respondents

¶8

Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mrs. G.P.Mulekar A.P.P. for the State

¶9

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

¶10

DATED : APRIL 13, 2017

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:

¶12

1 Heard both sides.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

jdk 2 6.crwp.1343.17.j.doc

¶15

2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The ground was that his wife had to undergo surgery of the appendix. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 11.5.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 29.11.2016, hence, this petition.

¶16

3 The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected on three grounds. The first ground is that the witnesses in the criminal case have taken objection to the petitioner being released on parole. The second ground is that if the petitioner is released on parole, there would be danger to the lives of the relatives of the deceased and the third ground for rejecting the application for parole is that if the petitioner is released on parole, there will be a possibility of law and order problem. Reliance is placed by the prosecution on the statements of witnesses who have stated that if the petitioner is released on parole, there would be danger to their lives. However, as far as this aspect is concerned, the jail record of the petitioner shows that on 2.11.2015, he was released on

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

jdk 3 6.crwp.1343.17.j.doc

¶19

furlough for a period of 28 days and he had to surrender back on 1.12.2015 and the petitioner had surrendered back to the prison on his own on due date i.e. on 1.12.2015. During the period that the petitioner was on furlough, no complaint has been made by any witnesses regarding threats being given by the petitioner or anyone on his behalf to the witnesses. Moreover, during the period that the petitioner was on furlough, no law and order problem took place in the village. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be released on parole.

¶20

4 In view of the above, the petitioner to be released on parole for a period of 30 days on the usual terms and conditions as set out by the jail authorities. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

5 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba.

¶22

[ M.S.KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶23

kandarkar

Arvind Arjun Kamble v. the Additional Police Superitendant and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Arjun Kamble v. the Additional Police Superitendant and Ors.

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

Suresh Supdu Kapadnis Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Digambar Gavali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin @ Pintu Pratap @ Sanjay Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra Represented by National Investigation Agency Vs Areeb Ejaz Majeed @ Guddu @ Abu Ali Al Hindi

Lakhan Jambu Chougule @ Dayawan Dada Vs the District Magistrate and Ors.