Allowed

Vijaykumar Shrirang Jadhav (C-31) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2018WP/234/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a prisoner's furlough leave application. The court held that relying on the absconding of co-accused without specific material applied mind was mechanical, and directed the authorities to grant parole.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner directed to be released on parole leave as per Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959.

Vijaykumar Shrirang Jadhav (C-31) Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Cri. W.P. No. 0234 of 2018

¶2

(Judgment) (1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0234 of 2018

¶5

District : Aurangabad

¶6

Vijaykumar Shrirang Jadhav (C-31),
Central Prison, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Divisional Commissioner, Nashik.

¶9

2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Superintendent, Open Prison, Visapur. .. Respondents.

¶10

........... Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.W. Munde, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.01 and 02.

¶11

...........

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
 DATE : 14TH MARCH 2018

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Prasanna B. Varale, J.] :

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
respondents.

¶15

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 0234 of 2018

¶16

02.By the present petition, the petitioner -
convict no. C-31 is challenging the order dated
21.12.2017, passed by respondent no.01 i.e.
Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik,
thereby rejecting application made by the petitioner
seeking furlough leave.

¶17

03.Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited
our attention to the impugned order. The order
clearly show that the ground raised for seeking
benefit of parole leave was of serious ailment of the
mother of the petitioner, Smt. Chandrabhaga Shrirang
Jadhav. The medical certificate is also placed on
record. The certificate is issued by a private
physician namely, Dr. Ishwar Chhajed. The
certificate clearly show that the patient namely,
Smt. Chandrabhaga Jadhav is suffering from breast
cancer. She is advised to take rest and prolonged
treatment.

¶18

04.The application is rejected on the ground
that there is an adverse police report. The order
states that as the other co-accused one Ravi Sitaram
Naidu was released by grant of the leave and he is
absconding, as well, another co-accused Vilas Sitaram
Shinde, who was also released on leave and was
absconding, there is an apprehension that if the
petitioner is released, he may also abscond and would
not report the prison authorities. There is nothing
placed on record to show that on what material this

¶19

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0234 of 2018

¶20

opinion is formed by the authorities. Merely because
the co-accused were released on leave and they were
absconding, cannot be a reason to reject the prayer
of the petitioner outrightly. The authorities are
not only expected but are duty bound to apply their
mind to each of the case coming before them and on
assessment of the material, pass appropriate orders.
The course adopted by the authority seems to be a
mechanical application of mind. The authorities
cannot take a decision on a whole sole consideration
of the matter. The order clearly reflects that it is
such a course adopted by the authority.

¶21

05.One more interest fact which cannot be lost
sight of, is that the petitioner is a prisoner in
open prison, meaning thereby, while transferring the
petitioner from a prison to an open prison, is on
consideration of the material including good
behaviour of the petitioner - prisoner. Taking into
consideration all these facts, we are of the opinion
that the order impugned in the petition is clearly
unsustainable and is required to be quashed and set
aside.

¶22

06.In the result, the criminal writ petition is
allowed.

¶23

The impugned order dated 21.12.2017, passed by
respondent no.01 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik
Division, Nashik, is quashed and set aside. The
petitioner - convict is directed to be released on

¶24

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 0234 of 2018 parole leave as per entitlement under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959, as expeditiously as possible, after complying necessary formalities.

¶25

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( Prasanna B. Varale )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

...........

¶27

puranik / CRIWP234.18

Vijaykumar Shrirang Jadhav (C-31) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaykumar Shrirang Jadhav (C-31) v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Shaikh Mustakin Shaikh Tukadu and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Arif Shaikh Maheboob and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akash Pandurang Jahire (C-9605) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatraya Tulshiram Phirange (C-9797) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Ali Mohd Habib Shaikh C-4654 Vs Sandeep Kamble and Another

Supriya Chandrakant Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others