Partly allowed

Dada Tukaram Mane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jul 2019WP/759/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition by a prisoner regarding the permanent removal of his name from the remission register after absconding for 2803 days. The court directed the authorities to consider an afresh furlough application within 4 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is given an opportunity to apply afresh for furlough; the authority must decide on an expeditious basis if the application is filed within 4 weeks.

Dada Tukaram Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

rsk

3-WP-759-18-doc.doc

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.759 OF 2018

Dada Tukaram Mane

...Petitioner

vs.

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Ms. Saswati Deb (Appointed) for the petitioner. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent. Mr. N. M. Kamble, Jailor, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune

¶12

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 10/07/2019.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

. Heard learned counsel (appointed) for the petitioner and learned APP. Perused papers. Nominal roll tendered by learned APP is taken on record and marked Exhibit “A”.

¶16

Facts do show that the petitioner prisoner is in jail from 9/12/2000 and he was released on parole leave on 11/8/2007. He was required to be arrested and brought back on 15/6/2015. Thus, he was absconding for about 2803 days.

¶17

He was also released prior thereto on 28/2/2004 on furlough and he has reported back after delay of one day voluntarily on 15/3/2004. While mentioning this earlier release date 28/2/2004 has been inadvertently typed as “28/2/2014, thereby giving an impression that after his release on parole on 11/8/2007 he was again given furlough leave. The error in typing is apparent since periods overlap.

rsk

3-WP-759-18-doc.doc

2/2

After absconding for 2803 days punishment of removal of name permanently from remission register has been inflicted upon the petitioner. It is obvious that he must have even given some explanation and it must have been looked into by the Competent authority. Those details are not available with learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.

¶22

After June 2015 prisoner has put in 5 more years and he has not been released either on parole or furlough. His prison record appears to be satisfactory.

¶23

In this situation, whether absence of 2803 days was on account of reasons beyond his control or not is a mute question.

¶24

We are therefore inclined to give the petitioner an opportunity to apply afresh for furlough. If such application is preferred within 4 weeks from today, the Authority shall take decision upon it, in the light of observations made supra, expeditiously within next 4 weeks.

¶25

The petition is partly allowed and disposed of. No costs. Order be sent to the prisoner in jail.

¶26

(MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)

¶27

(B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Dada Tukaram Mane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dada Tukaram Mane 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

Sachin Madhukar Doke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Meena Baban Paygude Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jalindersinghy S/O Ajitsingh Kalyani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Basavraj Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shahafaizal Salauddin Kalburgi and Anr.

Arun Raghunath Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra