Hari Balaji Dangare vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8108 Bom

                                                                                  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

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

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





                                                            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