Quashed

Ashish Venkatrao Phad (C-10398) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jul 2018WP/727/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Divisional Commissioner's order rejecting a prisoner's parole application. The rejection relied on an FIR subsequently quashed by this Court and an adverse police report deemed unsustainable due to the quashed FIR. The order is set aside, granting liberty to apply fresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.10.2017 quashed; liberty granted to file fresh application with fresh medical certificate within four weeks.

Ashish Venkatrao Phad (C-10398) Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

727.18Cri.WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.727 OF 2018

¶5

Ashish Venkatrao Phad [C-10398]
Age: 24 years,
R/o. Nashik Road Central Prison,
Nashik. .. PETITIONER

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.

¶8

2. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Dist. Nashik.

¶9

3. The State of Maharashtra Through Additional Director General of Police [Prisons].

¶10

4. Inspector General of Prison, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶11

5. Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Head Office, Maharashtra Region, Nashik.

¶12

6. Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.

¶13

7. District Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Ambejogai [Incharge-Majalgaon]. .. RESPONDENTS

¶14

727.18Cri.WP

¶15

¶16

...

¶17

Ms.Neha B.Kamble [Appointed], Advocate for the
petitioner

¶18

Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for the respondent/State

¶19

...

¶20

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 V.K.JADHAV, JJ.

¶21

 DATE : 04.07.2018

¶22

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

¶23

1]Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶24

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

¶25

2]At the outset, learned APP appearing for

¶26

the respondent-State has tendered across the Bar
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent
no.2. The same is taken on record.

¶27

3]This Petition under Article 226 of the

¶28

Constitution of India takes exception to the order
dated 18th October, 2017 passed by respondent no.2

¶29

i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik,

¶30

rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to release

¶31

him on parole.

¶32

727.18Cri.WP

¶33

¶34

4]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

petitioner invites our attention to the impugned
order and submits that the main ground on which
the prayer of the petitioner to release him on
parole has been turned down, is the registration
of Crime against the petitioner at Majalgaon
Police Station, District Beed, for the offence
under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. She
further submits that another ground to reject the

¶36

prayer to release the petitioner on furlough is
adverse police report. It is submitted that the
petitioner herein filed Criminal Writ Petition
No.904/2017 [Ashishrao Venkatrao Phad Vs. State of
Maharashtra], taking exception to the registration
of the FIR vide Crime No.0189/2016 registered with
Majalgaon Police Station, District Beed on 16th
September, 2016, for the offence punishable under
Section 224 of the IPC. The said Writ Petition has
been partly allowed, in terms of prayer clause-C,

¶37

thereby quashing the FIR lodged against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 224 of
the IPC. Therefore, ground no.3 stated in the

¶38

727.18Cri.WP

¶39

¶40

impugned order to refuse prayer of furlough on the
ground that Crime No.85/2016 is registered against

¶41

the petitioner, cannot sustain. It is further
submitted that another reason mentioned in the
impugned order that the police report is adverse;
is without any basis. There is no mention in the
police report that why the petitioner cannot be
released on furlough. It is submitted that in case
the petitioner is given further opportunity; he is
ready to produce recent/fresh medical certificate
in respect of the ailment of his mother.

¶42

5]On the other hand, learned APP appearing
for the respondent-State relying upon the reasons
assigned in the impugned order submits that the
application of the petitioner to release him on
parole has rightly been turned down. He submits
that one of the grounds to reject the prayer of
the petitioner to release him on parole is that
there is no sufficient medical report showing the

¶43

serious ailment of his mother.

¶44

We have given careful consideration to

¶45

6]

¶46

727.18Cri.WP

¶47

¶48

the submissions of the learned counsel appearing

¶49

for the parties. Upon careful perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that the prayer of the
petitioner to release him on parole is turned
down, on the ground that Crime No.189/2016 was
registered against the petitioner for the offence
under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶50

However, in view of the fact that the said FIR has been quashed in Criminal Writ Petition No.904/2017, which was filed by the petitioner. The said ground of rejection can not survive. Secondly , though it is written that the police report is adverse, it appears that there is reference to the fact that when the petitioner was earlier released on parole, he did not report back within time. The said ground is interconnected to ground no.3, since ground no.3 itself is not sustainable due to reasons recorded herein above, the ground of ‘adverse police report’ would not survive.

¶51

727.18Cri.WP

¶52

¶53

7]In the light of above, the impugned order

¶54

dated 18th October, 2017, passed by respondent no.2
i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division,
Nashik is quashed and set aside. Liberty is
granted to the petitioner to file fresh
application. In case such application is filed by
the petitioner along with recent/fresh medical
certificate/report about the ailment of his
mother, the respondent authorities to consider the
same, as expeditiously as possible, however,
within four weeks from filing such application
with medical certificate/report and communicate
the said decision to the petitioner.

¶55

8]The Rule is made absolute on above terms.

¶56

The Writ Petition is partly allowed and the same
stands disposed of accordingly.

¶57

9]We appreciate the sincere efforts taken
by the Advocate Ms. Neha B.Kamble [Appointed] in
rendering able assistance during the course of
hearing of this Petition. Fees of the learned

¶58

727.18Cri.WP

¶59

¶60

appointed counsel be paid as per the schedule of
fees maintained by the High Court Legal Services

¶61

Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶62

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

¶63

DDC

Ashish Venkatrao Phad (C-10398) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Venkatrao Phad (C-10398) 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer Jafar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mudassar Aziz Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mujib Aziz Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sumedh S/O. Vithalrao Dhavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin Bhaskar Badgujar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mukesh S/O. Dattatraya Mankar Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik and Others