Allowed

Amit Deepak Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Mar 2018WP/958/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal writ petition appealing against rejection of furlough. The Court observed the petitioner voluntarily surrendered in past overstays without police arrest and approved furlough for 28 days on usual terms. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be released on furlough for 28 days on usual terms; impugned orders quashed; rule made absolute.

Amit Deepak Waghmare Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

jdk 1 9.crwp.958.18.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO. 958 OF 2018

¶3

	Amit Deepak Waghmare, Age 35 years, Occ: Farmer, Mharshal Ves, Panchshil Nagar, Mira Sangli, Maharashtra -416410 and at present lodged at Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.	.. Petitioner
	Vs.
1.	State of Maharashtra
2.	The Inspector General of Prison, Western Zone, Pune – 411001
3.	The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Western Zone, Pune-411001
4.	The Superintendent of Jail, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba - 416006
5.	Senior Police Inspector, MirajSehar Police Station, Miraj	.. Respondents

¶4

Mrs. Harjeet Kaur Bhagwant Singh for Petitioner Mrs. G.P.Mulekar A.P.P. for State

¶5

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J. DATED : MARCH 21, 2018

¶6

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

¶7

1 Heard both sides.

¶8

2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

¶9

1 of 3

¶10

jdk 2 9.crwp.958.18.j.doc 17.1.2017. The said application was rejected by order dated 29.6.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.11.2017, hence, this petition.

¶11

3 The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected on the ground that in the year 2008 when he was released on parole, there was overstay of 34 days. In the year 2012 when he was released on furlough, there was overstay of 1069 days. Thereafter, in the year 2014 when he was released on parole, there was overstay of 60 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on all the occasions, the petitioner had surrendered back to the prison on his own and it is not the case of the police arresting the petitioner and bringing him back to prison. She further pointed out that in the year 2015, the petitioner had preferred an application for parole which was granted and he was released on parole on 25.6.2016 and on the due date i.e. on 28.7.2016 the petitioner surrendered back to the prison on his own On perusal of the Nominal Roll of the petitioner which is produced by the Jailor from Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba where the petitioner is

¶12

2 of 3

¶13

jdk 3 9.crwp.958.18.j.doc

¶14

lodged, we find that contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are indeed correct. It is seen that on all occasions the petitioner had surrendered back to the prison on his own. Not on a single occasion, the petitioner was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. Moreover, it is seen that on the last occasion when the petitioner was released on parole, he has surrendered back on the due date to the prison on his own. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner in the prison is stated to be satisfactory. In view of these facts, we are inclined to release the petitioner on furlough.

¶15

4 The petitioner to be released on furlough for a period of 28 days on usual terms and conditions which will be imposed by the competent authority.

¶16

5 Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is

¶17

disposed of.

¶18

M.S.SONAK, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

kandarkar

¶20

3 of 3

Amit Deepak Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Deepak Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde Vs Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Ors.

Dr Vilas Shivappa Alure Vs Ms Sujata Saunik and Ors.

Mahesh v. Pawar Vs the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Dept. and Ors.

Wilson Benjamin Castellino Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Shivsji Krishnat Mo and Ors.Te Vs the State of Maharashtra. and Ors.

Shri. D.D. Panpatil Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Public Health Dept. and Ors.