Allowed

Dattu Baburao Pawar (C-9529) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jul 2018WP/587/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's furlough leave application based on an outdated adverse police report. The Court directed the Deputy IG (Prison) to reconsider the petition within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the rejection order directed Respondent No. 3 to reconsider the furlough application within 4 weeks.

Dattu Baburao Pawar (C-9529) Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

587.18 Cri.WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.587 OF 2018

¶5

Dattu Baburao Pawar,

¶6

Age: Major, Occ. : Convict No.C/9529,
R/o. At Nashik Road Central Prison,
Nashik. .. PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

2. The Maharashtra Prison Department, Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prison & Correctional Services, Pune-1.

¶10

3. The Deputy Inspector General (Prison) Central Prison, Harsool, Aurangabad.

¶11

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. .. RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mrs.Almas Shaikh Riyaz [Appointed] Advocate for
the petitioner

¶14

Mr.S.W.Mundhe, APP for the respondent/State

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶17

 DATE : 12.07.2018

¶18

587.18 Cri.WP

¶19

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]

¶21

1]Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶22

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of
the parties.

¶23

2]This Petition is filed with the following
prayer:

¶24

B.By way of appropriate writ, order or
direction in the like nature, the
rejection orders of the Respondents may
kindly be quashed and set aside and the
Petitioner may kindly be released on
furlough leave.

¶25

3]The petitioner is convicted for the

¶26

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code. He is undergoing life imprisonment at
Nashik Central Prison, Nashik.

¶27

The petitioner applied for furlough with

¶28

respondent no.3, but the said application was
rejected by the impugned order dated 29th
September, 2017. While rejecting the said

¶29

587.18 Cri.WP

¶30

¶31

application, four reasons were assigned; firstly adverse police report is received, secondly there was no recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail to release the petitioner on furlough; thirdly the petitioner is convicted under serious offence, and fourthly, the furlough is not a right of the convict/prisoner.

¶32

4]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioner submits that the principal reason for
rejection of the prayer of the petitioner to
release him on furlough was adverse police report.
However, the said report on which the respondent
authorities have placed reliance was in the year
2016. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
invites our attention to the police report dated
27th April, 2017 and also police report dated 29th
April, 2017, [which are at Page 17 & 18 of the
compilation of the Writ Petition] and submits that
in fact the reason assigned in the impugned order

¶34

that the police report is adverse, is contrary to
record, inasmuch as it is mentioned in the said

¶35

¶36

587.18 Cri.WP

¶37

police report that there is no impediment to
release the petitioner on furlough. In that view
of the matter, in our opinion, on that ground
alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed
and set aside. Accordingly, the same is quashed
and set aside. We direct respondent no.3 to re-
consider the prayer of the petitioner to release
him on furlough relying upon the police report,
which is already on record of which reference is
already made herein above, as expeditiously as
possible, however, within 4 weeks from today.

¶38

5]We make it clear that the respondent
authorities shall not place reliance upon the same
reasons, which are assigned in the earlier order

¶39

and consider the prayer of the petitioner
independently.

¶40

6]Rule is made absolute on above terms.

¶41

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶42

7]Since, Mrs. Almas Shaikh Riyaz, the
learned counsel is appointed to prosecute the

¶43

587.18 Cri.WP

¶44

¶45

cause of the petitioner, she would be entitled for
the fees, as per the schedule of fees maintained

¶46

by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Aurangabad.

¶47

8]Parties to act upon authenticated copy of

¶48

this order.

¶49

 [V.K.JADHAV] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶50

DDC

Dattu Baburao Pawar (C-9529) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattu Baburao Pawar (C-9529) 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

Naresh S/O. Chandraprakash Dixit (C-6195) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivraj S/O. Bhagwan Patil Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and Others

Shaikh Chand S/O. Shaikh Ismail Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Divisions, Aurangabad and Others

Dhananjay S/O. Namdeo Kharade (C-17713) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrakant S/O. Khandu Badgujar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Bansi Alhat, C.NO.16399 Vs the State of Maharashtra