Allowed

Umesh S/O. Ganesh Patil (C-10409) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC26 Apr 2018WP/495/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a convict's furlough leave. The court held that the grounds for rejection were vague and unsustainable, directing the authorities to release the petitioner on furlough leave.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders rejecting furlough leave were quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released on furlough leave after complying with formalities.

Umesh S/O. Ganesh Patil (C-10409) Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1)

¶2

Cri. W.P. No. 0495 of 2018

¶3

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

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0495 of 2018

¶5

	`District : Aurangabad`
`Umesh s/o. Ganesh Patil,` `(C-10409)(Convict),` `Central Prison,` `Nashik Road, Nashik.`	`.. Petitioner.`
`versus`
`1. The State of Maharashtra,` `Through the Secretary,` `Home Department (Prison),` `Mumbai - 400 005.`
`2. The Additional Director` `General of Police &` `Inspector General of Prison` `& Correctional Services,` `State of Maharashtra,` `Pune.`
`3. The Deputy Inspector General` `of Prisons,` `Central Division,` `Aurangabad.`	`.. Respondents.`
`4. The Superintendent,` `Central Prison,` `Nashik Road,` `Nashik.`

¶6

...........

¶7

Mr. Rajendra N. Chavan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.01 to 04.

¶9

...........

¶10

(Judgment)

¶11

(2)Cri. W.P. No. 0495 of 2018

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : 26TH APRIL 2018

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.] :

¶15

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

¶16

02.By the present petition, the petitioner -
convict no. C-10409 has challenged the order dated
16.09.2017, passed by respondent no.03 i.e. Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad, thereby
rejecting the application made by the petitioner
seeking furlough leave. The petitioner has also
challenged the order dated 12.01.2018, passed by
respondent no.02 i.e. Addl. D.G.P. & Inspector
General of Prisons, Pune, thereby rejecting the
appeal preferred by the petitioner.

¶17

03.The prayer of the petitioner seeking
furlough leave was rejected by the authorities on the
grounds viz. (a) Police report is adverse to the
petitioner, (b) The surety stood for the petitioner
does not appear to be proper as he is cousin of the
petitioner (c) The possibility of petitioner
threatening the complainant and witnesses cannot be
ruled out and there is possibility of threat to the
lives of the complainant and witnesses, if the

¶18

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0495 of 2018

¶19

petitioner is released on leave, and (d) There is no
recommendation of the Jail Superintendent.

¶20

04.LearnedAdvocateappearingforthe
petitioner submits, that the grounds for rejection of
furlough leave to the petitioner are vague and
unsustainable. He submits, that though the police
report is stated to be adverse against the
petitioner, no specific instances are mentioned. He
further submits, that the objection to the surety
proposed by the petitioner is unsustainable. He
further submits, that though apprehension is
expressed that the petitioner is likely to threaten
the complainant and witnesses, no specific instances,
if any, are mentioned. He has, therefore, urged that
the petition be allowed and the petitioner may be
released on furlough leave.

¶21

05.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the petition and supported the
impugned orders. He has urged that the petition be
dismissed.

¶22

06.As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate
for the petitioner, though police report is stated to
be adverse to the petitioner, no past events, if any,
are mentioned in the impugned orders. So also,
objection taken to the surety proposed by the
petitioner is vague and unsustainable. Similarly,
the apprehension expressed in respect of threats to
the complainant and witnesses at the instance of the

¶23

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 0495 of 2018

¶24

petitioner is without any substance. The last ground, that there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent is unsustainable. The leave sanctioning authority can suo motu call remarks about recommendation or otherwise from the Jail Superintendent.

¶25

07.In the facts and circumstances, learned
Advocate for the petitioner has made out a case for
grant of relief as prayed in the petition.

¶26

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

¶27

The impugned order dated 16.09.2017, passed by
respondent no.03 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons, Aurangabad, so also, the order dated
12.01.2018, passed by respondent no.02 i.e. Addl.
D.G.P. & Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, are
quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to
be released on furlough leave, as expeditiously as
possible, after complying all necessary formalities.

¶28

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

¶29

...........

¶30

puranik / CRIWP495.18

Umesh S/O. Ganesh Patil (C-10409) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh S/O. Ganesh Patil (C-10409) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shivraj Jivaraj Gaikwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Radhika @ Radha W/O. Bhanudas Salunke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kantilal S/O. Zamu Gaikwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kashinath Potanna Pitlewad (C-9590) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Minakshi Umesh Joshi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Minakshi Umesh Joshi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others