Allowed

Ganesh Narayan Kindre (C-5065) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC27 Apr 2023WP/645/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners in open prison challenged orders granting furlough leave subject to furnishing surety. The Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the surety conditions citing Rule 6 of the 1959 Rules, and maintained the rest of the orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders imposing condition regarding furnishing surety bonds quashed and set aside. Rest of orders maintained.

Ganesh Narayan Kindre (C-5065) Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

937-938-CriWP-645-2023+

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

937 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 645 OF 2023

¶5

GANESH S/O NARYAN KINDRE (C-5065)
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Ms. Sharada P. Chate
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. G. O. Wattamwar

¶8

938 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2023

¶9

KIRAN S/O RAJU PUJARI (C-5111)
VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶11

Advocate for Petitioner : Ms. Sharada P. Chate
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. R. V. Dasalkar

¶12

CORAM :MANGESH S. PATIL AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

¶13

DATED :27 APRIL 2023

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

1. Heard both sides.

¶16

2. The petitioners, who are confined in open prison under the Maharashtra Open Prison Rules, 1971 are aggrieved by the orders granting them furlough leave inter alia subject to furnishing surety.

¶17

3. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and the

¶18

learned Assistant Public Prosecutors in the respective matters.

¶19

937-938-CriWP-645-2023+

¶20

-2-

¶21

4.It does appear that the petitioners, while making an application
for furlough leave, did not insist for invoking the proviso to Rule 6 of
the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and as
interpreted by the Full Bench of this court in the matter of Dipak
Sudhakar Wakalekar v. State of Maharashtra and others ; 2011 Cr.L.J.
3263, whereby insistence of surety from the prisoners confined in
open prison has been held to be improper.

¶22

5. Since the petitioners themselves had not claimed such relief, no fault can be found with the authorities in passing the orders inter alia granting furlough leave subject to furnishing surety bond.

¶23

6.Be that as it may, if the law entitles a prisoner to take benefit of
proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1959, it would always be open for
the authorities to extend that benefit to them irrespective of their
prayer omitting to expressly seek that relief.

¶24

7.We allow the writ petitions and quash and set aside the
impugned orders to the extent those impose a condition regarding
furnishing surety bonds. The rest of the orders are maintained.

¶25

 [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

¶26

vre

Ganesh Narayan Kindre (C-5065) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Narayan Kindre (C-5065) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamlal Mansing Dahingal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bahadursing Deochand Shihire and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gulchand Sandusing Shihire and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Naved Altaf Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kaminee Ramsing Thoke Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Neetabai Ravindra Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Sports and Education Department