Allowed

Vinod Suresh Kharvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Feb 2019WP/763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the court set aside the orders of the Competent Authority and Appellate Authority that rejected a petitioner's furlough application. Relying on police reports and nominal rolls, the court held the disqualifications under Rules 4(4) and 4(6) were not attracted and directed the authorities to grant furlough.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 1st October 2018 and 31st December 2018 were set aside, and the Competent Authority was directed to grant furlough.

Vinod Suresh Kharvi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 crwp-763.19.docx

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.763 OF 2019 (THROUGH JAIL)

Vinod Suresh Kharvi

… Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶9

None for the Petitioner. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 22^nd FEBRUARY 2019.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 Rule. The learned APP waives service for the respondent. Forthwith taken up for final disposal. The petitioner applied for grant of furlough under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rule, 1959 (for short “the said Rules of 1959”). The Competent Authority rejected the application on the following grounds :-

¶14

A] There is an adverse report;

¶15

B] The petitioner was called upon to furnish surety of a person who is residing at a distance of 200 kms or more from the place where the offence is committed but the petitioner did not furnish such surety;

¶16

C] The petitioner is undergoing sentence for the offence

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

2 crwp-763.19.docx

¶19

punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

2 In fact, the impugned order of the Competent Authority mentions that application is rejected relying upon the disqualification in sub-rule (4) of Rule 4. The disqualification in sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 is that release is not recommended by the police on the ground of public peace and tranquility.

¶21

3 An appeal was preferred by the applicant before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority approved the grounds of rejection by the Competent Authority and rejected the appeal by relying upon the subrules (4) and (6) of Rule 4 of the said Rules of 1959.

¶22

4 Therefore, the question is whether the disqualification under sub-rule (4) and sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 are attracted in the present case.

¶23

5 We have perused the police report dated 16^th March 2018 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone – 11, Mumbai. It records that the surety offered is of the petitioner’s mother. Moreover, it is mentioned that no information is available about the complainant and prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the conclusion recorded in the police report is that furlough is not recommended on the ground of public peace and tranquility has no basis. As far as the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent is concerned, on the contrary, the Nominal Roll records that the conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and he has not been penalised for any misconduct in the Jail. Thus, even the ground of disqualification under sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 is not attracted.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

3 crwp-763.19.docx

¶26

6 As the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal only on the basis of disqualification under sub-rule (4) and sub-rule (6) of Rule 4, both the orders cannot be sustained.

¶27

7 Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) The impugned orders dated 1^st October 2018 and 31^st December 2018 are hereby set aside;

¶30

(ii) We direct the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order granting furlough to the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions. We make it clear that furlough granted to the petitioner shall be treated as the furlough granted for the year 2018;

¶31

(iii) Appropriate order shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date on which this order is communicated by the office of the Public Prosecutor to the Competent Authority;

¶32

(iv) Rule is made absolute on above terms;

¶33

(v) A copy of this order shall be provided to the petitioner by the Jail Superintendent.

¶34

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

¶35

3 of 3

Vinod Suresh Kharvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Suresh Kharvi 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

Sandip Shamrao Satpute Adn Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satish Rama Bhojane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Shamrao Satpute Adn Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raju Vitthal Bhadre Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Ors.

Sandeep Rajendra Pawar Alias Kevsingh Panga Pawara Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Ambadas Bankar Vs the State of Maharashtra