Allowed

Sayyed Ali Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jun 2019APPW/127/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a prisoner's application for refund of his security deposit after he returned one day late on furlough supported by a medical certificate, directing authorities to refund the amount within four weeks and substitute any punitive order.

What did the court decide?

Refund of security deposit of Rs.12,000/- to be ordered within four weeks; authorities permitted to substitute the rejected order with any other prison punishment.

Sayyed Ali Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Rane

¶2

1/3 (APPLN-127-2018) sr.21 10.6.2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 127 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 410 OF 2017

¶6

Sayyed Ali Sayyed, through jail …..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

¶7

¶8

Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, &

¶10

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

¶11

Monday, 10^th June, 2019.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1. Prisoner, convict seeks an order of return of

¶14

his security deposit furnished at the time of his release on

¶15

furlough in February/March, 2014. Learned APP has invited our attention to the fact that, he was released on

¶16

furlough leave for 14 days and thereafter was given extension of 14 more days which expired on 19^th March,

¶17

Rane 2/3 (APPLN-127-2018) sr.21 10.6.2019

¶18

He was to report back on 20^th March, 2014 but he has

¶19

reported late by one day i.e. on 23^rd March, 2014.

¶20

Perusal of order dated 2^nd August, 2016 by which return of security amount is rejected, shows that, the petitioner had submitted a Medical Certificate which revealed that he was under medical treatment for some acid peptic disorder upto to 20^th March, 2014 and was to become fit on 21^st March, 2014. It appears that, earlier, for late reporting by one day, he was administered a warning. Because of this conduct & previous history, security deposit has not been refunded.

¶21

Order shows that, prisoner has four daughters, one son. It is claimed that, security deposit amount of Rs.12,000/- was taken as loan by his wife.

¶22

Learned APP submits that, residence of prisoner was within two to three kilometers of prison and he could have therefore definitely reported back within time.

¶23

Record shows that, after his late return by one day in March, 2014, he has availed furlough leave for 14 days in October-November, 2014 and again for 14 days in

¶24

Rane 3/3 (APPLN-127-2018) sr.21 10.6.2019

¶25

July-August, 2016. On both occasions, he has reported back

¶26

on due dates.

¶27

In this situation, when the prisoner had given Medical Certificate, we find, denial of refund of security deposit, harsh.

¶28

We permit prison authorities to substitute said order by any other prison punishment.

¶29

Accordingly, with liberty to the Authorities to pass suitable orders for late return in March, 2014 and with direction to them to return security deposit amount to the petitioner within four weeks from today, we dispose of the

¶30

present petition.

¶31

(B.P. DHARMADHIKHARI, J)

¶32

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)

Sayyed Ali Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Ali Sayyed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyanadev Rajaram Palave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Vasant Mudgul Vs State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Dept. of Industries , Energy and Labour and Anr.

Dnyanadev Rajaram Palave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravindra Namdeo Wadekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ali Mohd. @ Sonu Qureshi S/O. Lal Mohd. Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjiv Ashok Sangde Vs the Inspector General and Ors.