Partly allowed

Umakant Vasantrao Kumbhare / Borikar (C-10321) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Aug 2017WP/986/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition filed by a convict serving a life sentence, the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed the orders rejecting his parole extension applications. The court directed the authority to reconsider the matter ignoring a subsequent Notification and applying relevant rules in force at the time of application, fixing a deadline for the fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; respondent No. 2 directed to reconsider parole extension application ignoring subsequent Notification, applying prior rules, and communicate decision by 28th August 2017.

Umakant Vasantrao Kumbhare / Borikar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

986.17WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 986 OF 2017

¶5

Umakant Vasantrao Kumbhare @ Borikar
Convict No. C/10321,
Age : Major, Occ : Nil,
C/o Nashik Road, Central Prison,
Nashik.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶10

3. The Superintendent Nashik Road, Central Prison, Nashik.

¶11

 RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr. Sanket N. Suryawanshi, advocate for
Petitioner (appointed).

¶14

Ms. S.S. Raut, APP for Respondents / State.

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶17

 S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶18

 DATE : 04.08.2017

¶19

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

¶20

Rule.Rulemadereturnable

¶21

986.17WP.odt

¶22

¶23

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶24

2.This Petition is filed with the

¶25

following prayers :-

¶26

“b) Quash and set aside the impugned
order passed by respondent No.2 at
Annexure C dated 03.09.2016 and
impugned order passed by respondent
no.1 dated 31.03.2017 at Annexure “E”
and for that purpose issue necesary
orders;

¶27

c) By appropriate writ order or
direction grant total 60 days of
extension of parole (30 days each)
applied for by the petitioner, vide
extension application dated 2-07-2016
and 30-07-2016 and for that purpose
issue necessary orders;

¶28

d)Quash and set aside the proposal
of cancellation of 240 days remission
in the case of petitioner for 60 days
delay in reporting to the Jail and for
that purpose issue necessary orders;

¶29

986.17WP.odt

¶30

¶31

3.It is the case of the petitioner

¶32

that, he is convict (C-10321) and undergoing
imprisonment for life in Nashik Central
Prison, Nashik. Since wife of the petitioner
was ill, the petitioner filed application on
2nd March, 2016, praying therein for releasing

¶33

him on parole for 30 days. The concerned
authority granted the prayer of the
petitioner to release him on parole for 30
days by an order dated 20th May, 2016.
Pursuant to the order passed by the said
authority, the petitioner was released on
parole for 30 days on 20th June, 2016.

¶34

4.It is further the case of the

¶35

petitioner that, the petitioner applied for
extension of parole by filing another
application on 2nd July, 2016 with necessary
documents including the medical certificate
of his wife. Since the period of 30 days came

¶36

986.17WP.odt

¶37

¶38

to an end on 20th June, 2016, the petitioner
was required to report back to the Jail and
accordingly, he reported back on 21st July,
2016. On 30th July, 2016, the petitioner made
second application for extension of parole.
However, respondent no.2 by his order dated

¶39

3rdSeptember, 2016 rejected the said
application by relying upon the notification
issued by the Home Department, Government of
Maharashtra dated 26th August, 2016. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
preferred the appeal before respondent no.2
on 17th September, 2016. However, by order

¶40

dated 31st March, 2017, the appeal filed by
the petitioner came to be rejected. Hence
this Petition.

¶41

5.The learned counsel appearing for

¶42

the petitioner submits that, the petitioner
did file the application for extension of
parole on 2nd July, 2016, and on 30th July,

¶43

986.17WP.odt

¶44

¶45

2016respectively,theaforementioned

¶46

notification on which the reliance was placed
by respondent no.2 to reject the application
of the petitioner, was brought into force on
26th August, 2016. It is submitted that, since
the applications filed by the petitioner for
extension of parole were before issuance of
the Notification dated 26th August, 2016 by
the Home Department, the said applications of
the petitioner would govern by the relevant
provisions/relevant rules, which were in
force prior to issuance of the Notification
by the Home Department, on 26th August, 2016.
Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that, the impugned
order deserves to be quashed and set aside
and the Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶47

6.On the other hand, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State, on

¶48

instructions received from the respondent

¶49

¶50

986.17WP.odt

¶51

authorities, makes a statement that, the
respondent authorities are ready to

¶52

reconsider the application of the petitioner
for extension of parole, keeping in view the
relevant rules, which were in force at the
relevant time when the applications were
filed by the petitioner and necessarily by
ignoring the Notification issued by the
Department of Home, Government of Maharashtra
on 26th August, 2016.

¶53

7.In the light of the submission made
across the Bar and the statement made on

¶54

instructions by the learned A.P.P., the
impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the

¶55

prayer of the petitioner for extension of
parole treating his applications prior to
issuance of the aforementioned Notification
and by ignoring the said Notification, and
taking into consideration the relevant

¶56

986.17WP.odt

¶57

¶58

rules/procedures,whichwerein
force/operation on 2nd July, 2016 and 30th
July, 2016 respectively. Respondent No.2 to
take decision afresh, as expeditiously as
possible, and preferably on or before 28th
August, 2017 and communicate the said

¶59

decision to the petitioner.

¶60

8.With the above observations, the
Petition stands disposed of.

¶61

9.The parties shall act upon

¶62

authenticated copy of this order.

¶63

10.We appreciate the sincere efforts
taken by Mr. Sanket N. Suryawanshi, learned

¶64

counsel in promptly filing the Petition and
rendering able assistance during the course
of hearing of the Petition. Since Mr. Sanket

¶65

N. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel is
appointed to prosecute the cause of the

¶66

986.17WP.odt

¶67

¶68

petitioner, his fees be paid as per the
schedule of fees maintained by the High Court

¶69

Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶70

 [S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶71

SGA

Umakant Vasantrao Kumbhare / Borikar (C-10321) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umakant Vasantrao Kumbhare / Borikar (C-10321) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devidas S/O. Baburao Gavai and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip S/O. Matsendrarao Kandharkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gunwant @ Dhudaku Trymbak Patil Vs the State of Maharashstra

Dr Kailas Laxman Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

State of Maharashtra Vs Vishnu Ziparu Aagavane

Ramakant Chandrasen Jadhav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra