Dismissed

Gurunath Chandrakant Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Apr 2018WP/3287/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3287 of 2017 dismissed the writ petition filed by a prisoner challenging the rejection of his parole application. The Court held the petitioner was ineligible for parole under Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, applicable via a 2016 notification, noting that convictions for sections of IPC 392 to 402 preclude such release

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order to communicate the order to the petitioner in Nasik Road Central Prison.

Gurunath Chandrakant Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

5. cri wp 3287-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3287 OF 2017

¶5

Gurunath Chandrakant Patil

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State

¶12

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

¶13

M.S. SONAK, J.

¶14

DATE : APRIL 12, 2018.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the

¶18

ground of illness of his wife on 9.11.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 20.3.2017. Being

¶19

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 12.6.2017, hence, this

¶20

petition.

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶22

5. cri wp 3287-17.doc

¶23

One of the main ground for rejecting the application of

¶24

the petitioner for parole is that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected mainly in view of Rule 4(13) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Rule 4(13) states that prisoners convicted inter alia for dacoity will

¶25

not be eligible for furlough. Thereafter, by notification dated 26.8.2016, it is stated that those prisoners who cannot be released on furlough would not be eligible to be released on parole. The application of the petitioner is dated 9.11.2016 that is after the said notification, hence, this notification would apply to the case of the petitioner. However, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner would not fall under Rule 4(13) but it would fall under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. Rule 4(2) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 states that the prisoners convicted of the

¶26

offences under Section 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the IPC

¶27

are not entitled to be released on furlough. As stated earlier,

¶28

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶29

5. cri wp 3287-17.doc

¶30

in view of the notification dated 26.8.2016, rules pertaining

¶31

to furlough are made applicable to the cases of parole, hence, in view of Rule 4(2), the petitioner would not be eligible to be released on parole. No doubt, the Authorities have wrongly mentioned that Rule 4(13) would apply, however, it makes no difference because in view of Rule 4(2) also, the petitioner could not be released on parole.

¶32

Looking to all these facts, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

¶33

Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

¶34

is lodged in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.

¶35

[ M.S. SONAK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶36

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3

Gurunath Chandrakant Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurunath Chandrakant Patil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Mangal Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Venugopal Kankayya Rasmal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lala @ Lalya Sharuddin Malik Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bablya @ Indrajit Rangrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Adg of Police and Ors.

Devidas Gangaram Sakpal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Dattatray Rindhe Vs the State of Maharashtra