Allowed

Nimba Pundlik Patil (C-7476) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018WP/261/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 0261 of 2018 allowed the petitioner's plea for furlough leave. It held that the rejection by prison and police authorities based on a civil dispute was a mechanical approach, especially as the petitioner had successfully reported back on five previous occasions when released on parole or furlough.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Additional Director General of Police are quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released on furlough leave expeditiously.

Nimba Pundlik Patil (C-7476) Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 0261 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0261 of 2018

¶4

District : Dhule

¶5

Nimba s/o. Pundlik Patil
Age : 63 years,
Convict No.C/7478,
Nashik Road Central Prison,
Nashik... Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent.

¶6

...........

¶7

Ms. Smita Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. K.S. Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.

¶9

...........

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
 DATE : 03RD APRIL 2018

¶11

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

¶12

Heard learned Advocate (appointed) for the
petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
for the respondent - State of Maharashtra.

¶13

02.Learned Advocate (appointed) for the
petitioner submitted that due to paucity of time, she
could not file a proper petition but she is ready on
the merits of the petition.

¶14

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 0261 of 2018

¶15

03. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is convict no. C- 7478 and lodged presently at Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, prayed for grant of furlough leave. The prison authority only on a mechanical approach, rejected the application and the order of the prison authority was confirmed by the appellate authority. Learned Advocate submitted that though the ground of rejection is an adverse police report, there is nothing which comes on record to say that there was an adverse material against the petitioner except some civil dispute between the petitioner and his sister. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was released on parole and furlough leave earlier on five occasions. On all earlier occasions, the petitioner reported to the prison authorities suo motu within time. She further submits, that at that time, no such reason of the petitioner having a civil dispute with his sister came in the way of the petitioner for his release on leave. She has, therefore, urged that the petitioner be allowed and the petitioner may be released on furlough leave.

¶16

04.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent made an attempt to support the
order passed by the authorities. He also made
available relevant documents for our perusal.

¶17

05.On going through the material placed on

¶18

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0261 of 2018

¶19

record, we are of the opinion that the learned
Advocate for the petitioner was justified in making
submission that the impugned orders of rejection are
on mechanical approach of the authorities. We find
that prior to this occasion, the petitioner was
released on furlough leave on three occasions i.e. in
the years 2009, 2012 and 2014. On all these three
occasions, the petitioner reported back to the prison
authorities on the due date. Apart from that, there
were again two occasions of his release i.e. in the
years 2011 and 2014. Even on those two occasions,
the petitioner reported to prison authorities on due
date. Learned Advocate for the petitioner was
justified in submitting that when there was no such
hindrance for the petitioner coming in his way for
his release on earlier occasions, the ground raised
by the authorities to reject the prayer, namely, the
civil dispute is only a mechanical approach by the
authorities.

¶20

06.Considering the above referred facts, the
criminal writ petition is allowed.

¶21

The impugned order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the
Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad, so
also, order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the Additional
Director General of Police & Inspector General of
Prisons, Pune, are quashed and set aside. We direct
the prison authorities to release the petitioner on
furlough leave, as expeditiously as possible, after
complying all necessary formalities.

¶22

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 0261 of 2018

¶23

07.Learned Advocate Ms. Smita Kulkarni was
appointed to represent the case of the petitioner.
Her fees is quantified at Rs. 3,000/- [Rupees three
thousand].

¶24

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

¶25

...........

¶26

puranik / CRIWP261.18

Nimba Pundlik Patil (C-7476) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimba Pundlik Patil (C-7476) 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

Rajnikant S/O. Ramnarayan Pandey Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Latif Hasan Madari (C-9193) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh Vs K. Subramanyam, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mumbai and Others

Ambarishi S/O. Shripadrao Patil (C-4679) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Nilesh S/O. Hiralal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Ashpak S/O. Shaikh Hassan (C-8138) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.