Partly allowed

Pankaj Nanku Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Aug 2021WP/2668/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of furlough application based on adverse police report lacking factual material. Court quashed order directing authorities to reconsider afresh with fresh report and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and set aside; respondents directed to consider application afresh with fresh report and appropriate conditions within six weeks.

Pankaj Nanku Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

932-wp-2668-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2668 OF 2021

¶4

Pankaj Nanku Singh ...Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vinod Kashid, for the Petitioner Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondents-State.

¶9

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

¶10

DATE : AUGUST 05, 2021

¶11

JUDGMENT (Per N. J. Jamadar, J.)

¶12

Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the

¶13

counsel for the parties heard fnalll.

¶14

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 19^th August, 2020 passed bl the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Reformation Services wherebl the appeal preferred bl the petitioner came to be dismissed confrming the order dated 11^th October, 2018 passed bl the Dl. Inspector General of Prisons, Central Division, Aurangabad rejecting the application of the petitioner for release on furlough.

1/6

Vishal Parekar

932-wp-2668-2021.doc

The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts: a] The petitioner came to be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3(1) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (the MCOC Act, 1999) and section 25(1-B) read with 3 of Arms Act. For the major offences, the petitioner has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. As of 30^th June, 2011 the petitioner has undergone 11 lears and 2 months actual imprisonment.

¶19

b] The petitioner applied for furlough. The respondent No. 2 rejected the application on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh has submitted an adverse report. It was noted, inter alia, that the petitioner would not surrender to prison in the event he is released on furlough and there was a strong likelihood of the petitioner, if released, committing offences leading to breach of peace. It was further opined bl the Superintendent of Police that the sureties would not be able to keep control over the activities of the petitioner and the petitioner would jump the furlough. Thus, invoking the provisions contained in Rule 4(4) of the Prisons (Bombal Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (the Rules, 1959), the application came to be rejected. An

2/6

Vishal Parekar

932-wp-2668-2021.doc

appeal preferred thereagainst came to be dismissed bl the Inspector General, Prisons bl invoking Rule 4(4) and 4(20) of the Rules, 1959, bl the impugned order.

¶24

We have perused the material on record including report of Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur dated 23^rd April, 2019.

¶25

We have heard Mr. Vinod Kashid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Mhatre, learned APP for the State.

¶26

Mr. Kashid invited the attention of the Court to an order dated 4^th June, 2019 in Writ Petition No. 1999 of 2019 passed bl the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.P.Dharmadhikari and Smt. Swapna Joshi, JJ.) wherebl this Court directed the authorities to reconsider the application of the co-convict Randhir @ Nikhil Singh for grant of furlough. It was inter alia recorded bl this Court that the apprehension of not returning back to prison or the possibilitl of indulging in criminal activities was not based on anl factual material and, thus, without anl basis. It was further noted that the authorities can impose appropriate conditions including attendance at the local police station.

3/6

Vishal Parekar

932-wp-2668-2021.doc

Mr. Kashid further urged that the said co-convict, who was released on furlough, has since surrendered.

¶31

Mrs. Mhatre, learned APP supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the authorities were justifed in rejecting the praler of the petitioner to release him on furlough on the basis of adverse report of the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the petitioner is a member of a gang known as “Bharat Nepali Gang” and, therefore, the apprehension entertained bl the authorities cannot be said to be unfounded.

¶32

The primarl reason for rejection of the praler to release the petitioner on furlough seems to be adverse police report. The Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur has recorded that there is a strong possibilitl of the petitioner feeing awal in the event he is released on furlough. There is also an apprehension that the petitioner mal indulge in criminal activities and commit breach of public peace. The proposed sureties would not be able to keep a tight leash on the petitioner.

4/6

Vishal Parekar

932-wp-2668-2021.doc

We do not fnd that the apprehensions voiced bl the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur are backed bl anl positive material. The apprehension that the petitioner mal not surrender appears to steam from the fact of association of the petitioner with Bharat Nepali Gang. It is imperative to note that the co-convict of the petitioner was released on furlough, and the learned APP has confrmed, on instructions, that the said co-convict Randhir Singh has returned to prison. The authorities, in our view, have not adverted to the possibilitl of imposing stringent conditions to take care of the apprehension entertained bl them. It is trite that mere bald and unsubstantiated assertion that the release of the prisoner mal lead to breach of peace and tranquilitl and the prisoner mal jump the furlough, without anl material in the nature of unfavorable conduct of the prisoner, antecedents and the attendant circumstances, is not suffcient to deprive a prisoner of a legitimate privilege to be released on furlough and parole.

¶37

We are therefore persuaded to quash and set aside the impugned orders and direct the respondents to consider the praler of the petitioner afresh.

5/6

Vishal Parekar

932-wp-2668-2021.doc

The authorities mal call for an express fresh report from the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur and obtain the necessarl undertaking/bond from the petitioner and sureties and impose appropriate conditions to take care of the apprehension, and, thereafter, pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶42

The authorities shall, however, decide the application of the petitioner for release on furlough afresh within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order.

¶43

The petition stands partll allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶44

Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶45

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶46

(S. S. SHINDE, J.)

¶47

6/6

¶48

Vishal Parekar

Pankaj Nanku Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Nanku Singh 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

Rohit S Kamble Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Prabhakar @ Bablu Ashok Polkam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rakesh Mukhnath Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Kakasaheb Waghmare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohsin Haider Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manmohan Gopiram Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.