Disposed

Ajay Prabhakar Mainur v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Mar 2017WP/218/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought direction for premature release or furlough. The court held the matter sub silentio decided in earlier precedents regarding remission and furlough leave calculation. The respondent authorities were directed to consider these judgments while deciding the proposal for the petitioner's release, and the writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to consider relevant judgments on furlough and remission while deciding proposal for premature release.

Ajay Prabhakar Mainur Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 Cri.WP-218-17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 218 OF 2017

¶4

Shri Ajay S/o Prabhakar Mainur Age: Major, Occu. Nil, R/o : Prisoner No. 4707, Open District Prison Paithan, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.

¶7

The Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune – 1.

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. District Aurangabad.

¶9

The Superintendent, Open District Prison, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad ...RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. P.D. Dadpe, Advocate for petitioner Mr. D.R. Kale, APP for Respondent – Authorities

¶11

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 3^rd MARCH, 2017.

¶13

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2 Cri.WP-218-17

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

¶17

The point raised in this petition is, no more res-integra and covered by the pronouncements, in writ petition No. 1485 of 2013 ( Jagannath Raghunath Shelke Vs. The State of Maharashtra ) decided on 24^th December, 2013, criminal writ petition No. 211 of 2014 ( Sayyed Shaukat Sayyed Kashim Vs. The state of Maharashtra and others) decided on 2^nd July, 2014 and criminal writ petition No. 1468 of 2015 ( Sahadev Kerappa Kale Vs State of Maharashtra ) decided on 21^st December 2015.

¶18

In that view of the matter, in case the petitioner's prayer is not already considered and furlough or extended period of furlough leave is not included while counting the remissions, the respondent authorities to consider the same keeping in view the judgments referred hereinabove, and take appropriate decision at the time of considering the proposal for premature release of the petitioner.

¶19

With above observations, writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶20

The parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

¶21

MTK

Ajay Prabhakar Mainur v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Prabhakar Mainur 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

Vishwanath S/O Kondiba Vaidya and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santshri Baba Maha Hansaji Maharaj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalyan S/O Balaji Shrirame and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anupkumar Gulraj Saayrani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Radhika @ Chaya W/O Babasheb Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aruna W/O Vinayakrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.