Allowed

Arvindkumar Bhaiyalal Sahu v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2018WP/3240/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner to furnish the second surety as a present Sarpanch under Category 7(ii) of the 2016 Notification. A four-week extension was granted for complying with parole formalities, including furnishing the required surety.

What did the court decide?

Extension of four weeks granted to furnish the second surety; parole granted subject to security deposit and a present Sarpanch as surety.

Arvindkumar Bhaiyalal Sahu Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1. cri wp 3240-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3240 OF 2017

¶5

Arvindkumar Bhaiyalal Sahu

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &

¶13

M.S. SONAK, J.

¶14

DATE : APRIL 6, 2018.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

¶18

1.6.2016 on the ground of illness of his father. The said

¶19

application was granted by the Competent Authority by order

¶20

dated 13.4.2017, however, as the petitioner had been

¶21

released on furlough on 22.3.2017, on 13.4.2017 when the

¶22

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

¶23

1. cri wp 3240-17.doc

¶24

order granting parole was passed, the petitioner was outside

¶25

the prison on furlough leave. Hence, when the petitioner was brought back to the prison on 6.5.2017, the order dated 13.4.2017 was communicated to the petitioner.

¶26

In the order dated 13.4.2017, the petitioner was asked

¶27

to furnish two sureties; one was the original surety, Mr. Bhupendra Mishra proposed by the petitioner who was the cousin brother of the petitioner. Further the petitioner had to deposit Rs. 15,000/- towards security deposit. In addition, the petitioner was asked to furnish one more surety who

¶28

was a Central or State Government employee as envisaged under Clause 7(i) of Notification dated 26.8.2016. As the petitioner could not furnish second surety who was a Central

¶29

or State Government employee, he preferred an application for extension of time and also preferred an application stating that he is willing to furnish surety who falls in Category 7(ii) of the Notification dated 26.8.2016. Clause 7(ii) states that the surety should be elected local

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

¶31

1. cri wp 3240-17.doc

¶32

representative. The petitioner has stated in his application dated 12.6.2017 that he is willing to furnish surety of local elected representative i.e Sarpanch of his village.

¶33

Learned APP states that it would be advisable that the petitioner is directed to submit surety which falls under Category 7(i) because when the petitioner was released on furlough on 22.3.2017, he did not report back on due date to the prison and the petitioner had to be arrested by the police from U.P. and brought back to the prison, hence, she submitted that the second surety should be Central or the State Government employee so that adequate check can be kept on the petitioner by a responsible person.

¶34

On going through the Clause 7 of the Notification dated 26.8.2016, we are of the opinion that even if the surety is an elected local representative that too would serve the purpose of keeping adequate check on the petitioner if he is

¶35

released on parole. In this view of the matter, the petitioner

¶36

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

¶37

1. cri wp 3240-17.doc

¶38

is allowed to furnish surety of Sarpanch who falls under Category 7(ii) provided that Sarpanch is a present Sarpanch and not a past Sarpanch.

¶39

The petitioner is granted extension of four weeks time to comply with the necessary formalities including furnishing second surety. It is made clear that this period will be computed from the date of communication of this order to the petitioner.

¶40

This order will be ready by the evening of 9.4.2018. Mr.

¶41

Prashant M. Nagawade, Gr. 2 Jailor of Nasik Road Central Prison states that he will collect the copy of this order by 10.4.2018 and he will communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶42

It is made clear that under no circumstances, any

¶43

further extension of time will be granted.

¶44

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

¶45

1. cri wp 3240-17.doc

¶46

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶47

[ M.S. SONAK, J ]

¶48

[ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶49

5 of 5

¶50

jfoanz vkacsjdj

Arvindkumar Bhaiyalal Sahu v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvindkumar Bhaiyalal Sahu 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

Pandurang Ganpat Kokam Vs the Superintendent of Jail and Ors.

Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape Vs the Superintendent of Jail and Ors.

Dilip Sitaram Palande Vs the Superintendent of Jail and Ors.

Niranjansingh Bharatsingh Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mujamil Huissein Shabbir Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajid Akhtar Safique Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra