Bombay High Court
Rakaesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane vs The Superintendent And Ors on 8 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
2. CRI WP 3036-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3036 OF 2016
Rakesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane .. Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent,
Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba & Ors. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. B.G. Tangsali i/by
Mr. Santosh Musale Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
14.12.2015 on the ground of illness of his brother. The said
application came to be rejected by order dated 12.2.2016.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
2. CRI WP 3036-16.doc
Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
The appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 26.7.2016.
4. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected on
the ground that there is danger to the life of the witnesses
and the families of the witnesses. This is a sole ground on
which the application of the petitioner for parole came to be
rejected.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was released
on furlough on 23.9.2013. He surrendered back to the
prison on the due date. Thereafter on 31.8.2015, the
petitioner was released on furlough. He surrendered back to
the prison on his own but there was delay of one day. On
31.10.2014, the petitioner was released on parole. He
surrendered back on the due date to the prison. During all
the three occasions that the petitioner was released on
furlough and parole, no record has been pointed out to us to
show that there was any complaint by any of the witnesses
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
2. CRI WP 3036-16.doc
that there was threat to them by the petitioner. Similarly, no
record has been pointed out to us that any untoward incident
took place during the period that the petitioner was released
on furlough or parole. In this view of the matter, we are of
the opinion that there was no objective material before the
Authorities to come to the conclusion that if the petitioner is
released on parole, there would be danger to the life of the
witnesses or their family members. Moreover, the police
report shows that the surety is found suitable and competent
and it is also stated in the police report that the brother of
the petitioner is suffering from the problem of spinal cord for
which he has been advised operation.
6. Looking to the above facts, we are inclined to grant
parole to the petitioner, hence, the orders dated 12.2.2016
and 26.7.2016 are set aside. The petitioner be released on
parole on the usual terms and conditions as set out by the
Jail Authorities.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
2. CRI WP 3036-16.doc
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
