Hari Balaji Dangare vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8108 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2017

Bombay High Court
Hari Balaji Dangare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 October, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                                  16. cri wp 3072-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3072 OF 2017


            Hari Balaji Dangare                                           .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait      APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner had applied for death parole on the ground of death of his mother. The said application came to be granted by order dated 25.2.2017, however, by the said order, the petitioner was directed to give security deposit of Rs. 10,000/-. In addition, he was asked to furnish surety of a jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:59:37 :::

16. cri wp 3072-17.doc relative in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Further, he was asked to furnish a second surety of reputed person like Sarpanch, Corporator, Member of Grampanchayat, Police Patil or a Government Servant. In addition, the main surety has to execute a bond on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner states that he is unable to give security deposit of Rs. 10,000/-. It is further stated that it is impossible for him to furnish a second surety of reputed person like Sarpanch, Corporator, Member of Grampanchayat, Police Patil or a Government Servant. On the query why such condition of second surety of reputed person like Sarpanch, Corporator, Member of Grampanchayat, Police Patil or a Government Servant was imposed, the learned APP placed reliance on Notification dated 26.8.2016 by which Rule 24(a) came to be amended. On reading the amended part of Rule 24(a), we find that it is stated therein that a prisoner shall furnish at least two sureties from the following categories:-

1. Central or State Government Employee;
2. Elected Local representative;
3. Family member having good antecedent or;

4. Friend and relative having good antecedent jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:59:37 :::

16. cri wp 3072-17.doc However, it is seen that the sureties can be furnished from any one of the categories and it is not necessary that the surety has to be a reputed person like Sarpanch, Corporator, Member of Grampanchayat, Police Patil or a Government Servant. Thus, both the sureties can be family members or relatives or friends provided they have good antecedents.

3. In the facts of this case, on humanitarian ground, we reduce the cash security from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5000/-. Both the sureties are reduced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner is permitted to furnish sureties of family members or relatives or friends. The rest of the conditions in the order dated 25.2.2017 are maintained.

4. The petitioner is granted eight weeks time from the date of communication of this order to comply with the necessary formalities.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                        3 of 4




       ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:59:37 :::
                                                            16. cri wp 3072-17.doc




5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

6. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.




[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         4 of 4




       ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:59:37 :::