Allowed

Sunil S/O. Gangadhar Kokate (C-8822) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2019WP/1112/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition rejecting an order that denied furlough to a convict. Setting aside the rejection, the Court held the reasons insufficient and ordered the release on furlough within 15 days subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of furlough application set aside; petitioner ordered to be released on furlough; surety accepted within 15 days.

Sunil S/O. Gangadhar Kokate (C-8822) Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 Cr WP 1112 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.1112 of 2019

¶4

Sunil s/o Gangadhar Kokate (C-8822), Central Prison, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through D.I.G. Prisons, Aurangabad. 2) The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent Central Prison, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶7

Shri. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate, for petitioner.

¶8

Shri. R.D. Sanap, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. Date: 1st AUGUST 2019

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):

¶11

Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both the sides for final disposal.

¶12

2 Cr WP 1112 of 2019

¶13

The proceeding is field for setting aside the order made by respondent No.1 by which the application for furlough came to be rejected. The submissions made and the record show that two reasons are given for rejecting the application as under : (1) there is adverse police report that the witness and the first informant apprehend threats to their life and (2) the surety will not be able to control the petitioner.

¶14

The submissions made and the record show that the petitioner has been behind the bars since the year 2013. This will be the first time for the petitioner to get furlough. The submissions made show that the petitioner will be living at village Kasrave, Tahsil Biloli, District Nanded and this place is far away from Nanded where the informant and the witnesses are living. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner undertakes not to go to Nanded during the furlough leave.

¶15

Considering the object behind the furlough this Court holds that opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner to show that he has improved himself and he is

¶16

3 Cr WP 1112 of 2019

¶17

no more danger to the society. This Court holds that the reasons given by the respondent authority cannot sustain in law.

¶18

In the result, the petition is allowed. the order made by the respondent rejecting the application is set side. The application filed for furlough is allowed subject to usual conditions. The petitioner be released on furlough. The surety given by the father of the petitioner is to be accepted. This is to be done within 15 days from today. Rule made absolute in those terms.

¶19

Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. SONAWANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶20

rsl

Sunil S/O. Gangadhar Kokate (C-8822) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil S/O. Gangadhar Kokate (C-8822) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Suryakant Siddharth Bhalerao and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ahmed Shaikh Mohiuddin Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh S/O. Ramesh Chabukswar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maqsood Bashir Quadri and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mansing S/O. Tulshidas More and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohan Sunil Jain (Chavre) and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.