Allowed

Yogesh Madhukar Chavan (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC16 Apr 2018WP/276/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a furlough leave application. The bench quashed the order, directing the respondents to grant furlough within seven days, noting the rejection was based on offences not finally held by the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

QP allowed; impugned order quashed; release on furlough directed within seven days subject to surety.

Yogesh Madhukar Chavan (in Jail) Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.276/1018

¶4

(Yogesh Madhukar Chavan vs . State of Maharashtra & another )

¶5

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

Ms. S.D. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. N.R.Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicants

¶7

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 16^th April, 2018.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagpur, dated 8.3.2018, rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough leave.

¶10

The furlough leave application of the petitioner is rejected only on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of the Penal Code and Rule 4(13) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 stipulates that a prisoner would not be entitled to furlough leave if he is involved in the offence of dacoity.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the judgment of the conviction and sentence of the appellant

¶12

¶13

was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, by the judgment reported in 2014) 4 SCC 292 convicted and sentenced the present petitioner and the other accused to suffer life imprisonment for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302,120B of the Penal Code. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held that the petitioner and the other accused are guilty of the offences punishable under sections 394 and 397 of the Penal Code.

¶14

From the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that though the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 394 and 397 of the Penal Code by the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has convicted the petitioner only of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 120B of the Penal Code. The reason recorded by the respondents for rejecting the furlough leave application does not appear to be correct.

¶15

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough within seven days from the date on which the relative of the petitioner furnishes surety, as is required by Rule 6 of the Rules of 1959. Order accordingly.

¶16

JUDGE JUDGE

¶17

sahare

Yogesh Madhukar Chavan (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Madhukar Chavan (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Tikeshwar Gautamrao Ghotekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Jaripatka P.S. Nagpur

Dr. Ramdas S/O Govindrao Chaware Vs Sau. Archana Nerkar, Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati and 2 Others

Mohd. Iqba Mohd. Hanif Sheikh (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary of Home Department Mumbai and Others

Mukesh @ Raju S/O. Poonamchand Patel (in Jail) Vs Superintendent Central Prison Amravati and Another

Satish S/O. Yadavrao Dhoke Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Prison (Eastern Region) Nagpur and Another

Mr. Manish S/O. Roshan Indurkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Kalamana Nagpur