Partly allowed

Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Bhong v. Divisional Commissioner Amravati Dist. Amravati and Another

Bombay HC14 Oct 2024WP/796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of writ petitions by convicts whose parole/furlough leave was rejected solely on the amended one-and-a-half-year eligibility rule. The court held that rule cannot survive against Full Bench law, quashed rejection orders, and directed fresh consideration on other grounds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection orders quashed; petitioners may submit additional documents within one week; authorities to verify and decide afresh within two weeks; Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) barred as ground for rejecti

Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Bhong vs Divisional Commissioner… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11616-DB

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

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

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 379/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.385/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.439/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.495/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.502/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.582/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.740/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.762/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.773/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.795/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.796/2024 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.815/2024 with

¶7

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.753/2024

¶8

¶9

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 379/2024

¶10

Raju @ Mukesh Poonamchand Patel (C-4864), aged about 42 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Bagmer, near Ram Mandir, Tah. Pandhana, Dist. Khandwa (M.P.)

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶14

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

… RESPONDENTS

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶20

with

¶21

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.385/2024

¶22

Nilesh Ganpat Fushe (C-6124) aged about 30 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Post Sungaon, Tah. Jalgaon-Jamod, Dist. Buldhana.

¶23

... PETITIONER

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶26

Superintendent of Jail, Amravati Central Prison, Amravati.

¶27

… RESPONDENTS

¶28

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M. K. Pathan, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶29

with

¶30

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.439/2024

¶31

Golu @ Salim Khan Gaffar Khan Pathan (C-5788) aged about 28 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Nehru Nagar, Babhugaon, Tah. Babhugaon, Dist. Yavatmal.

... PETITIONER

VERSUS

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

Superintendent of Jail, Amravati Central Prison, Amravati.

¶38

… RESPONDENT

¶39

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N. Joshi, APP for respondent/State

¶40

with

¶41

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.495/2024

¶42

Amol Vijay Deshmukh (C-5925), aged about 38 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Palshi, Tah. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli.

¶43

... PETITIONER

¶44

VERSUS

¶45

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶46

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

¶47

… RESPONDENTS

¶48

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. S. Kolhe, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶49

with

¶50

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.502/2024

¶51

Vijay Bhimrao Deshmukh (C-5924) aged about 62 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Palshi, Tah, Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli.

... PETITIONER

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

VERSUS

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶58

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati. … RESPONDENTS

¶59

¶60

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.

¶61

Mrs. S. Kolhe, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. -------------------------------------with

¶62

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.582/2024 Santosh Janardan Pagrut (C-687), aged about 45 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Ghusar, Tah. & Dist. Akola.

¶63

... PETITIONER VERSUS

¶64

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶65

Superintendent of Jail, Morshi Open Prison, Amravati.

¶66

… RESPONDENTS

¶67

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. S. Kolhe, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

with

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.740/2024

¶73

Dhiraj Arunrao Shinde C-205 (6099) aged about 38 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Paratwada, Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.

¶74

... PETITIONER

¶75

VERSUS

¶76

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶77

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

¶78

… RESPONDENTS

¶79

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. Ghogare, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. -------------------------------------with

¶80

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.762/2024

¶81

Prafulla Baburao Sarode C-872(6068) aged about 46 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Manik Chowk, Sindkheda, Dist. Buldhana.

¶82

... PETITIONER

¶83

VERSUS

¶84

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶85

Superintendent of Open Prison, Morshi, Dist. Amravati.

… RESPONDENTS

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. N. Tripathi, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶91

with

¶92

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.773/2024

¶93

Rahul Babanrao Bhad (C-5889) aged about 30 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Hantoda, Tah. Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati.

¶94

... PETITIONER

¶95

VERSUS

¶96

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶97

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

¶98

… RESPONDENTS

¶99

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. N. Tripathi, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶100

with

¶101

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.795/2024

¶102

Tushar Kiranrao Maskare (C-5971) aged about 30 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Tadni Purna, Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati.

¶103

... PETITIONER

¶104

VERSUS

¶105

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

¶110

… RESPONDENTS

¶111

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. S. Dhote, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶112

with

¶113

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.796/2024

¶114

Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Bhong (C-918) aged about 45 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. Kaudgaon, Tah. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli.

¶115

... PETITIONER

¶116

VERSUS

¶117

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶118

Superintendent of Jail, Morshi Open Prison, Morshi, Dist. Amravati.

¶119

… RESPONDENTS

¶120

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. U. R. Phasate, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶121

with

¶122

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.815/2024

¶123

Sanjay Tulshiram Bawankar (C-4756) aged about 45 yrs., Occ. NA, R/o. P.O. Kawtha Kadu, Tah. Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.

... PETITIONER

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

VERSUS

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶130

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

¶131

… RESPONDENTS

¶132

Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. Badar, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶133

with

¶134

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.753/2024

¶135

Pradip Mahadeorao Sahare, aged about 35 yrs., R/o.Rajni, Post Dorli (Bhandwalkar), Tah. Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur. C/666, Open Prison, Morshi.

¶136

... PETITIONER

¶137

VERSUS

¶138

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

¶139

Superintendent of Jail, Open Prison, Morshi, Dist. Amravati.

¶140

… RESPONDENTS

¶141

Ms. Sonali B. Khobragade, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M. K. Pathan, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶142

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND ABHAY J. MANTRI JJ.

DATE : 14.10.2024.

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶148

Heard.

¶149

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶150

These bath of petition raises a common issue that the

¶151

convict’s parole/ furlough leave has been rejected primly on the ground of amended Rules 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (“Rules of 1959”). The said rule postulates that a prisoner shall be eligible for subsequent release on regular parole/furlough only after completion of one and half years of actual imprisonment to be counted from his last return.

¶152

Learned counsel appearing for applicant relied on the decision of this Court in case of Amit s/o Gajanan Gandhi Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.47/2023 decided on 24.01.2023, wherein the said issue has been exclusively dealt in para 7

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

and 8 of the decision which reads as below:

¶157

“7. The only resistance is on account of the rider requiring petitioner to make him self eligible in terms of Rule 19(C) (ii) of the Prison Rules which concededly has not been complied with. Rule 19(C)(ii) has been substituted by notification dated 10.02.2022. Prior to notification, there was a similar proviso under Rule 19(2) making a condition of eligibility for regular parole of staying in Jail for the period of one year after expiry of his last release on emergency or regular parole. The said proviso to Rule 19(2) was subject matter of challenge before the Full Bench of this Court in case of Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal Vs.

¶158

Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, 2019(6) Mh.L.J. 186 , wherein the said proviso has been held to be violative to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶159

We find that the newly introduced condition of Rule 19(2) (C)(ii) is having similar flavor which has been already dealt by the Full Bench of this Court. Full Bench in para 34 of the decision has expressed that there is no sense in not entertaining the urge for release earlier in peculiar facts. In case at hand, the petitioner has produced document to show that his wife is about deliver a child tomorrow (25.01.2023) and there is nobody in the family to take care. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to grant regular parole.”

Judgment

5 wp 379.24

Apart, the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in some of the cases, besides bar of Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959, no other reason is assigned. As against this, the learned APP would submit that since the authority was much swayed by amended Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959, therefore, the other grounds for rejection though discussed, have not been specified.

¶164

In view of law laid down by the Full Bench decision in case of Kantilal (supra) and the decision rendered by this Court in case of Amit (supra), the reason about amended Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959 would not survive. The matter remains to scrutinize the application on rest of the grounds, if any including verification of the medical ground and on other general parameters.

¶165

In view of above, all petitions are partly allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the authority in all above petitions. The petitioner, if desires, can produce additional documents in support of the cause canvassed for the parole to the Jail Superintendent within one week. On receiving the papers, the authority shall verify the

¶166

Judgment 5 wp 379.24

¶167

¶168

same, consider the petitioner's eligibility on all parameters and decide those applications afresh within two weeks thereafter. We make it clear that Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959 shall not be ground for rejection, if petition is rejected on said ground, necessary action of contempt would be initiated.

¶169

All petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶170

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

¶171

Gohane

¶172

Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/10/2024 11:04:40

Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Bhong v. Divisional Commissioner Amravati Dist. Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Bhong v. Divisional Commissioner Amravati Dist. Amravati and Another

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

All orders in this case

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