Disposed

Ramesh Krishna Narote v. the State of Maharashtra through Divisional Comissioner Amravati and Other

Bombay HC14 Oct 2024WP/715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convict's parole leave was granted by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati but he was not released, with authorities citing an amended Parole Rule communicated orally. The court directed respondent No.3 to act in accordance with the Divisional Commissioner's order and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to release petitioner in accordance with the Divisional Commissioner's parole order dated 04.12.2023.

Ramesh Krishna Narote Vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 19 wp 715.24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 715/2024

¶4

(Ramesh Krishna Narote Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.)

¶5

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶7

 Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms. S.P. Chavhan, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
Mrs. M. Deshmukh, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 14/10/2024.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

2.It is petitioner’s grievance that though the
Divisional Commissioner has granted parole leave vide
order dated 04.12.2023, but he has not been released.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for petitioner would submit
that the respondent No. 3 is not releasing the petitioner by
orally communicating amended Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules. Since the
petitioner’s parole application is allowed by respondent
No.1 Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, we direct that
respondent No.3 shall act in accordance with said order.

¶14

4.Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶15

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶16

Gohane

Ramesh Krishna Narote v. the State of Maharashtra through Divisional Comissioner Amravati and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Krishna Narote v. the State of Maharashtra through Divisional Comissioner Amravati and Other

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

Sanjay Tulshiram Bawankar vs Divisional Commissioner Amravati and Another

Sopan Tejrao Kasar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldhana and Another

Aatif Ali Meer Athar vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Old City Akola and Another.

Tajraj S/O. Yadorav Chavhan Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Duggipar, Tq. Sadak Arjuni, Dist. Gondia and Another.

Amol Dnyaneshwar Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, City Ps, Chandrapur and Another

Raju @ Mukesh Poonamchand Patel vs Divisional Commissioner Amravati Dist.Amravati and Another