Partly allowed

Laxman Pandurang Pawar (C - 5555) v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur Wardha Road Nagpur and Another.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2023WP/751/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Nagpur held that conditions for furlough leave imposed on a prisoner were onerous. The court modified the order, reducing security amounts and changing reporting frequency to ensure the leave's utility.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition partly allowed; order impugned modified to reduce cash and surety bonds to Rs. 5,000 each and restrict reporting to Sundays and Thursdays.

Laxman Pandurang Pawar (C - 5555) Vs Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

wp751.23

¶2

2023:BHC-NAG:15060-DB

¶3

Order

¶4

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 751/2023.

¶7

Laxman Pandurang Pawar, Convict No.C-5555, Age 40 years, Presently at District Prison Amravati, District Amravati.

¶8

… PETITIONER. -VERSUS-

¶9

1.Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur, Wardha Road, Nagpur. 2.The Superintendent of Jail, District Prison, Amravati District Amravati.

¶10

… RESPONDENTS.

¶11

…….. Shri J.S. Chilotra, Advocate (Appointed) for the Petitioner. Ms N. Tripathi, A.P.P. for Respondents.

¶12

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J J.

¶13

DATE : OCTOBER 11, 2023.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J) :

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the

Rgd.

Order

wp751.23

learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

The petitioner, a prisoner, has challenged the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 by which onerous conditions are imposed for release on furlough leave. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn out attention to Rule 10 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The said Rule shows that for granting furlough, personal bond or cash security and surety bond can be obtained by the Authority.

¶23

In the present matter, the Authority has asked the petitioner/ prisoner to give cash security of Rs.25,000/-, personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and one surety in the like amount. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these conditions are onerous and also not permissible as per Rule 10. We find substance in the said submission. There is one more condition imposed by the respondent due to which the petitioner is required to report to the concerned police station on every day.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is asked to comply with these conditions, then furlough leave

Rgd.

Order

wp751.23

of 28 days will be of no use, as he will be required to attend the police every day and he will not be in a position to avail this period in practice. There is force in the submission made by the learned Counsel.

¶30

This Court holds that in view of Rule 10 of the 1959 Rules, and to see that the petitioner is in a position to avail the entire furlough leave properly, the order impugned needs to be modified. Hence, Writ Petition is partly allowed, by modifying the order impugned as under :

¶31

“The petitioner / prisoner to furnish cash security in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and a bond of surety of Rs.5000/-. He is directed to report to the concerned police station on every Sunday and Thursday between 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

¶32

Rest of the conditions will remain as they stand.”

¶33

This order is to be complied within a period of 10 days from

¶34

today.

¶35

Fees of the appointed Counsel be determined and paid as per

¶36

Rules.

¶37

( VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶38

Rgd.

Laxman Pandurang Pawar (C - 5555) v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur Wardha Road Nagpur and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Pandurang Pawar (C - 5555) v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Division, Nagpur Wardha Road Nagpur and Another.

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

Pralhad Ramchandra More Vs the State of Mah. Law and Judiciary Dep. Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Dilip Pandurang Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra Pso Hudkeshwar Nagpur.

Ajinkya Dilip Raut Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

Raju S/O Dnyaneshwar Deshbhratar Vs Xyz and Anohter

Anjana Bharat Ganatra Vs State of Mah. Thr. Home Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Lalit Nandlal Bais Vs the State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Police Station Umred Dist. Nagpur