Bombay High Court
Ramesh Marutrao Patil vs The Inspector General Of Prison ... on 19 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 6.crwp.2183.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2183 OF 2016
Ramesh Marutrao Patil ]
Age 54 years, Occ: Nil ]
Residing at 1030/E, ]
Gavat Mandai, Kolhapur ]
(At present lodged at Kolhapur ]
Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur ]
C/2760) ].. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Prison, ig ]
Western Region, Pune ]
]
2. The Superintendent, ]
Kolhapur Central Prison, ]
Kalamba, Kolhapur ]
]
3. The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondents
....
Mr. D.G. Khamkar Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable
forthwith. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.
2 The prayer of the petitioner is that he is not being
1 of 3
jdk 2 6.crwp.2183.16.doc
sent to Open Prison. The case of the petitioner was
considered by the Selection Committee on 6.8.2013 and his
case was rejected for being sent to Open Prison due to his
habit of unauthorizedly overstaying when he was granted
parole or furlough. The details of the overstay are as under:
(i) In the year 2005 when the petitioner was released on
parole, he did not report back to the prison in time. Ultimately
the police had to trace him and arrest him and bring him back
to the prison. There was overstay on the part of the petitioner
of 202 days;
(ii) Thereafter in the year 2009 when the petitioner was
released on parole, he overstayed by a period of one day;
(iii) Thereafter when the petitioner was released on
furlough on 27.12.2010, he did not report back in time and
there was overstay on his part of 137 days;
(iv) Thereafter when the petitioner was released on
furlough on 30.4.2012, he did not report back in time and there
was overstay on his part of 16 days;
(v) On 25.8.2012 when the petitioner was released on
parole, he did not report back in time and he overstayed by a
2 of 3
jdk 3 6.crwp.2183.16.doc
period of one day;
(vi) Thereafter the petitioner was released on furlough on
25.7.2013. Again he did not report back in time and there was
overstay on his part by a period of two days.
3 On account of the habit of the petitioner of
unauthorizedly overstaying whenever he was released on
parole or furlough and on one occasion, he was arrested by the
police and brought back to the prison, the case of the
petitioner was rejected for selection for being sent to the Open
Prison. In view of the previous record of the petitioner, we
cannot find any error in the decision of the Selection
Committee for not considering the case of the petitioner for
sending him to Open Prison, hence, we are not inclined to
interfere. However, next year if the petitioner prefers a fresh
application for being sent to Open Prison, the same be
considered by the authorities on merits. Rule is discharged.
Petition is disposed of in above terms.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
3 of 3
