Dismissed

Vicky @ Vikesh Ramesh Bacchav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Feb 2019WP/48/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of parole. The Court held that the petitioner, convicted for heinous offences including rape with murder, is disqualified under Rule 4(13) of the 1959 Rules from furlough, and consequently ineligible for regular parole under Rule 19(2).

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition challenging the rejection of parole was rejected, and the order was forwarded to the Jail Superintendent.

Vicky @ Vikesh Ramesh Bacchav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

ssm 1 1-wp48.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 48 OF 2018

¶5

Vicky @ Vikesh Ramesh Bacchav

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent.

¶9

Ms. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi for the Petitioner. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. OKA, AND A. S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 18^th FEBRUARY, 2019.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the Respondent State.

¶13

2 The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an Order passed by the Competent Authority as well as the Appellate Authority by which the Petitioner is denied grant of parole applied under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (for short, “ The said Rules of 1959” ). The Application is rejected on the ground that he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 (g) as well as under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

1/2

¶15

ssm 2 1-wp48.18.doc

¶16

3 Perusal of the said Rules of 1959 as applicable on the date of making an Application and the date of consideration of the Application made by the Petitioner shows that Clause (13) of Rule 4 disqualifies a person who is convicted for the offences such as kidnapping for ransom or rape or rape with murder. As per Rule 19 as amended by the Notification of 26^th August 2016, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 19 lays down that all prisoners eligible for furlough shall be eligible for regular parole. Therefore, it follows that a prisoner who is disqualified to be released on furlough will have to be denied parole.

¶17

4 Accordingly, we find no error in the view taken by the Authorities when the Petitioner is disqualified for grant of parole in view of Clause (13) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1959.

¶18

5 Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶19

6 A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Petitioner through

¶20

the Jail Superintendent of Nashik-Road Central Prison.

¶21

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶22

2/2

Vicky @ Vikesh Ramesh Bacchav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky @ Vikesh Ramesh Bacchav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahadev Narayan Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayyad Nisar Sharifmiyan Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nirmala Bhalchandra Thombare and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Tanaji Shripati Jadhav and Anr.

Laltu Ashok Ghosh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashi Kapoor Ramnath Vishwakarma Vs the State of Maharashtra