Allowed

Hari Om Pande @ Pandit v. Divisional Commissioner and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2017WP/418/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order imposing stricter parole conditions with higher surety amounts and government employee requirements. The court directed the petitioner's release on parole on the same terms and conditions as in his previous furlough order of 2014.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 19.12.2016 imposing stricter parole conditions is set aside, and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole on the same terms and conditions as in the order dated 12.11.2014 g

Hari Om Pande @ Pandit Vs Divisional Commissioner and Anr. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

11. cri wp 418-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 418 OF 2017

¶5

Hari Om Pande @ Pandit

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Divisional Commissioner & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Ms. Rohini Dandekar	Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar	APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶14

DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2017.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

¶18

26-27/8.2015 on the ground of illness of his mother. The

¶19

said application came to be rejected by order dated

¶20

22.3.2016. Against the order of rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by order dated

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

¶22

11. cri wp 418-17.doc

¶23

26.7.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred

¶24

Writ Petition No. 3879 of 2016 before this Court. Looking to the fact that on 6.1.2015 when the petitioner was released on furlough, he reported back to the prison on due date on his own, this Court, by order dated 30.11.2016, granted the prayer of the petitioner for parole in the said Writ Petition

¶25

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is

¶26

that in the said order, it is reflected that the petitioner be released on parole on usual terms and conditions as set out by the competent authority. Earlier on 12.11.2014, when the petitioner was granted furlough, he was directed to be released on furlough on executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and his relative (Guarantor) to execute a surety bond for the amount of Rs. 20,000/- and second non-relative guarantor to execute a surety bond for Rs. 20,000/-. While releasing the petitioner on parole on this occasion, by order dated 19.12.2016 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, it was directed that surety Mr. Karuna Vijay Pandey

¶27

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

¶28

11. cri wp 418-17.doc

¶29

shall execute a surety bond of Rs. 30,000/-. In addition, the petitioner shall furnish two other sureties; one from Azamgad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and one from Nasik in the State of Maharashtra who shall be government employees. Both the sureties from U.P. as well as Maharashtra would be in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- each.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶31

by order dated 12.11.2014, the petitioner was granted furlough by the Dy. Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad. By the said order, he was directed to be released on personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each. After being released on furlough, he complied with all the terms and conditions and reported back on his own to the prison on the due date. These statements are not controverted by the prosecution.

¶32

The petitioner has submitted that the present conditions on

¶33

which he has been released on parole are harsh. It is further

¶34

his case that on the earlier occasion, no condition was

¶35

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

¶36

11. cri wp 418-17.doc

¶37

imposed that the sureties shall be government employees.

¶38

It is submitted that looking to the conditions imposed on the

¶39

petitioner, it is impossible for him to avail parole.

¶40

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

¶41

12.11.2014 when the petitioner was released on furlough on

¶42

the conditions stated above, he reported back on the due date to the prison on his own. This shows that the terms and conditions as imposed in the order dated 12.11.2014 were

¶43

enough to ensure that the petitioner maintains good behaviour when he was on furlough and also to ensure that the petitioner reports back on the due date to the prison. He submitted that in this view of the matter, same terms and conditions as imposed in the order dated 12.11.2014 be imposed on the petitioner and he be released on parole.

¶44

Looking to all the above facts, the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nasik is set

¶45

aside, instead, the petitioner shall be released on parole on

¶46

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

¶47

11. cri wp 418-17.doc

¶48

the same terms and conditions as set out in the order dated

¶49

12.11.2014 whereby the petitioner was released on furlough

¶50

by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad.

¶51

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶52

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶53

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5

Hari Om Pande @ Pandit v. Divisional Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Om Pande @ Pandit v. Divisional Commissioner and Anr.

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

Tejashree Vitthal Shrisat Vs Abhijit @ Baltya Vitthal Shirsat and Ors.

Bittu Domilal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Balya Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Ramesh Jhole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naseem Ahmed Habib Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yuvaraj Ananda Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra