Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Amol Ambadas Bankar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1035 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1035 Bom
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2017

Bombay High Court
Amol Ambadas Bankar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 24 March, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
 jdk                                                     1                                                 10.cr.wp.518.17.j.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 518 OF 2017


Amol Ambadas Bankar                                                             ]
Age Adult, Occ: Nil                                                             ]
Residing at C/o Sangeeta Balu Borate                                            ]
Village Kathi, Tal. Indapur, Dist.Pune                                          ]
Presently lodged in Kalamba Central                                             ]
Prison, Kolhapur                                                                ].. Petitioner

                    Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra                                                     ]
                                                                                ]
2. The Deputy Inspector General,                                                ]
    Prison, Pune-6                                                              ]
                                                                                ]
3. The Inspector General, Prison,                                               ]
    Pune-1, Maharashtra                                                         ]
                                                                                ]
4. The Superintendent of Jail                                                   ]
    Kalamba Central, Prison,                                                    ]
    Kolhapur                                                                    ]..Respondents


                             ....
Mr. B.G. Tangsali Advocate i/b Mr. Santosh S. Musale Advocate
for Petitioner

Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
                              ....


                                        CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
                                        DATED : MARCH                         24, 2017




                                                                                                    1   of  3





  jdk                                                     2                                                 10.cr.wp.518.17.j.doc

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

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

31.3.2016. It was rejected by order dated 18.6.2016. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. By

order dated 5.10.2016, the appeal came to be dismissed,

hence, this petition.

3 The appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that

on 28.8.2015 when the petitioner was released on parole for a

period of 30 days, he did not report back in time and ultimately

he was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison.

The second reason for rejecting the application of the

petitioner for parole is that in view of the Notification dated

23.3.2012, prisoners who have been convicted for 'kidnapping'

would not be released on furlough, hence, as the petitioner has

been convicted under Section 364 of IPC, his application for

furlough came to be rejected. In Criminal Writ Petition No.

3325 of 2014 the vires of Notification dated 23.2.2012 was

challenged before this Court. This Court (Coram: Smt.

2 of 3

jdk 3 10.cr.wp.518.17.j.doc

V.K.Tahilramani and Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, JJ.), by judgment

and order dated 5.5.2016, had turned down the said

Notification and held that the Notification was intra vires. In

this view of the matter, we cannot find fault with the

authorities for rejecting the application of the petitioner for

furlough, hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is

discharged. Petition is dismissed.

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

kandarkar

3 of 3

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter