Quashed

Asha Puna Tayade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2019WP/2380/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench quashed an order denying furlough to a petitioner who had previously absconded. It directed the competent authority to reconsider the request, ensuring the passenger safety statements and other relevant material were considered.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order falling down on 19.01.2019 is quashed; authority to reconsider furlough request within four weeks.

Asha Puna Tayade Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Nalawade

¶2

10-wp-2380-19.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2380 OF 2019

¶5

Asha Pune Tayade ….Petitioner vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ….Respondents

¶7

Mr.Rupesh Jaiswal holding for Adv. M.N.Gawankar for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP. for the State.

¶8

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 24^th June, 2019

¶9

PC :

¶10

By impugned order dated 19.1.2019 furlough is denied to petitioner on the ground that when he was released on parole leave in 2013 he absconded, was required to be arrested and brought back after 474 days. Hence, as per Rule 4(10) of Maharashtra Prison Furlough and Parole Rule, 1959 he is not eligible.

¶11

Counsel for petitioner states that because his late return, his name has been permanently removed from Remission Register. The word shall in Rule 4(10)) has been construed as directory and hence, in appropriate cases authorities have discretion to pass suitable orders even in the case of

Page-1/2

Nalawade

10-wp-2380-19.doc

present petitioner.

The learned APP states that impugned order mentions adverse police report and adverse remark of Jail Superintendent. According to her there is no refusal to consider the facts of the matter,

¶18

The file containing necessary papers is shown by learned APP to us. Therein police authorities have obtained some statements of relatives of victim/witness to gather that release of petitioner would be prejudicial to their safety and security. The fact that petitioner was on bail during trial and did not indulge in any wrong activities appears to be not in dispute. Similarly, the conduct of prisoner in Jail does not appear to be unsatisfactory,.

¶19

However, the authority competent to order his release has to consider all these material and then reach its satisfaction obviously that has not been done. We therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the said authority to reconsider the request made by the petitioner in the light of this order within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶20

(SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)

¶21

( B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶22

¶23

Page-2/2

Asha Puna Tayade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Puna Tayade 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhausaheb Pandurang Garad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gajanan Pralhad Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Uttam Aware Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Maruti Dhumal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Najim Kalam Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadeo Balani Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra