Allowed

Shaikh Ayyub Shaikh Hiraji v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Nov 2019WP/1648/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to challenge rejection of furlough leave application. Court held authority should have granted leave as petitioner is eligible and nearing release, setting aside the impugned order and releasing petitioner on furlough leave via accepted surety.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 7th/11th September 2019 set aside; application for furlough leave allowed; petitioner to be released on furlough leave with Hasham Hussain Shaikh as surety within 15 days.

Shaikh Ayyub Shaikh Hiraji Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 Cr WP 1648 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.1648 of 2019

¶4

Shaikh Ayyub Shaikh Hiraji, Age 45 years, Occupation : Nil, Convict No.8618 R/o at present in Central Prison, Aurangabad, Dist Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra.

¶7

1. The Deputy Inspector General of Central Prison, Aurangabad.

¶8

1. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶9

Mrs. Bharati B. Gunjal, Advocate, for petitioner.

¶10

Shri. R.D. Sanap, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondents.

¶11

Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &

¶12

S.M. GAVHANE, JJ. Date: 25^th NOVEMBER 2019

¶13

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

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

¶15

both the sides by consent for fnal disposal.

¶16

2 Cr WP 1648 of 2019

¶17

The present proceeding is fled to challenge the order made by respondent No.2 by which the furlough leave application is rejected. The application is rejected on the ground that there is adverse police report. Police report shows that the surety by name Hasham Hussain Shaikh, resident of Jikthan, who is a nephew of the prisoner, may not be able to control the prisoner and he may not be able to bring the prisoner back to the prison when the leave period is over. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the record showing that in the past, in September, the prisoner was released on parole and on that occasion Hasham Hussain Shaikh, resident of Jikthan, the same person was accepted as the surety.

¶18

The submissions made show that the prisoner is convicted for ofence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he is eligible for furlough leave. Hardly few months are remaining and after that he will out of jail by completing the jail sentence. In view of these circumstances this Court holds that the authority ought to have granted furlough. In the result, following order.

¶19

3 Cr WP 1648 of 2019

¶20

The petition is allowed. The order dated 7^th /11^th September 2019 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. The application for furlough leave is allowed. By accepting Hasham Hussain Shaikh, resident of Jikthan, Taluka Gangapur, as suety the petitioner is to be released on furlough leave. Other routine conditions may be imposed. This is to be done within 15 days from today. Rule made absolute in those terms. Authenticated copy is allowed to both the sides.

¶21

Sd/- Sd/- (S.M. GAVHANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶22

rsl

Shaikh Ayyub Shaikh Hiraji v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Ayyub Shaikh Hiraji v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sanjay Kumar Parasmal Jain (Chandalia) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoj Balya Gavit Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Shantaram Dahanukar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The State of Maharashtra through Additional Chie Secretary School Education Department and Others Vs Aadarsh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Osmanabad through Its Director and Another

Shambaba @ Sham Bhagwat Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nagnath S/O. Bapurao Sontakke (C-6738) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.