Allowed

Ashish Bharat Jadhav v. Director General of Police (Prison) and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2021WP/1070/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on furlough to Shirwal, Tal. Khandala, Dist. Satara. The order addressed the counter of the state regarding danger to witnesses, finding the concern neutralized by the surety's affidavit and release conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on furlough to stay at Shirwal, Tal. Khandala, Dist. Satara, attend police station twice a week, and surrender after period.

Ashish Bharat Jadhav Vs Director General of Police (Prison) and Ors. — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.08.17 19:35:58 +0530

¶2

(927) cri.wp-1070.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1070 OF 2021

¶5

Ashish Bharat Jadhav ]
Age 31 years,]
R/at – Yashodeep Chowk, Kadu Chawl]
Behind Joshi STD, Warje Malwadi, Pune ]
At present Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.]….. Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1] Director General of Police (Prison) ] Maharashtra State, Pune – 1 ] Old Central Building, 2^nd Floor, Pune ]

¶8

¶9

2] Superintendent of Police (Prison) ] Western Division, Yerwada, Pune-6 ]

¶10

¶11

3] Asst. Police Commissioner ] Sinhagad Division, Pune City ] ]

¶12

4] The State of Maharashtra ]….. Respondents.

¶13

Mr. Priyal Sarda for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S D Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶14

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

¶15

DATE :17th August 2021

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)

¶17

1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

¶18

of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

1 of 4

¶20

lgc

¶21

(927) cri.wp-1070.21.odt

¶22

2By way of filing of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner takes an
exception to the order dated 06th October 2020 passed by the 1st Respondent
thereby rejecting the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated
18/05/2020 passed by the 2nd Respondent rejecting application of the
Petitioner to release him on furlough leave.

¶23

3The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions,
submits that in case the Petitioner is released on furlough, the Petitioner is
ready to stay at Shirwal, Tal. Khandala, Dist. Satara. The learned counsel for
the Petitioner has tendered across the bar the copy of the affidavit of one
Savitri Dattatraya Vitkar, who is ready to stand as a surety in case the Petitioner
is released on furlough. The copy of the said affidavit is taken on record. The
learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to place on record the hard copy
of the affidavit within one week from today. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in jail since more than 8 years.

¶24

4The learned APP appearing for the Respondents/State, relying
upon the contents of the impugned orders, submits that the application filed by
the Petitioner to release him on furlough leave has been rejected by the
concerned Respondent/Authority on the reasonable ground that in case the
Petitioner is released on furlough and he is allowed to enter into Pune city, in
that case, there is a danger to the life of the informant and the witnesses.

¶25

2 of 4

¶26

lgc

¶27

(927) cri.wp-1070.21.odt

¶28

5We have given due consideration to the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance we have
carefully perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the Petition, and the
reasons assigned by the concerned Respondents/Authorities in the impugned
orders/

¶29

6It appears that the main apprehension expressed in the impugned
orders is that in case the Petitioner is released on furlough and he is allowed to
enter into Pune city, in that case, there is a danger to the life of the informant
and the witnesses.

¶30

7As already observed, one Savitri Dattatraya Vitkar, resident of
Shirke Colony, Moh. Tar Shirwal, Tal. Khandala, Dist. Satara, has filed her
affidavit stating therein that she is ready to stand as a surety to the Petitioner
in case he is released on furlough, and on completion of furlough period, she is
ready to take responsibility to bring back the Petitioner to Yerawada Central
Prison, Pune so as to undergo further sentence.

¶31

8In view of the affidavit of the said Savitri Dattatraya Vitkar, in our
opinion, the main reason given in the impugned order that in case the
Petitioner is released on furlough and he is allowed to enter into Pune city, in

¶32

3 of 4

¶33

lgc

¶34

(927) cri.wp-1070.21.odt

¶35

that case there is a danger to the life of the first informant and the witnesses,
no more survives, and therefore, there is no reason why the Petitioner shall not
be released on furlough.

¶36

9 Hence the following order.

¶37

A]The Writ Petition is allowed and the Petitioner shall be released on
furlough on usual terms and conditions as stated in the relevant procedure.

¶38

B]After release, the Petitioner shall stay at Shirwal, Tal Khandala,
Dist. Satara, that is the address given in the affidavit filed by the said Savitri
Dattatraya Vitkar, and shall attend the Shirwal police station twice in a week
i.e. on Wednesday and Sunday in between 11.00 am and 12 pm.

¶39

C]After completion of furlough period, the Petitioner shall surrender

¶40

himself to Yerwada Central Prison, Pune for undergoing further sentence.

¶41

D]Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Writ Petition stands

¶42

disposed of.

¶43

[N. J. JAMADAR, J][S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶44

4 of 4

¶45

lgc

Ashish Bharat Jadhav v. Director General of Police (Prison) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Bharat Jadhav v. Director General of Police (Prison) and Ors.

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

Nishant Vijay Ghosalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shabhana Parveen Inayatullah Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Shankarlal Mina and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satyajit Shreshthachandra Burman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aman Ajay Tiwari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jenny Roweena W/O Hany Babu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.