Apparao S/O. Bahadurrao Ghuge vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ig Of Prison, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5641 Bom

                                                                                            J Cri. WP-175-2023.odt
                                                    1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.175 OF 2023

        PETITIONER                         :        Apparao S/o Bahadurrao Ghuge,
                                                    Age-45, C-4374, Central prison
                                                    Amravati, Dist. Amravati

                                                    ..VERSUS..

        RESPONDENTS                        : 1      State of Maharashtra, through
                                                    Inspector General of prison, Central
                                                    Building, Pune

                                               2 The Deputy Inspector General of
                                                 prison (East) Nagpur.
                                               3 Superintendent of central                            prison,
                                                 Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Mr A. Y. Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner.
                Mrs. N. R. Tripati, APP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.

               DATE           : 15th JUNE, 2023.

           ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : VINAY JOSHI, J.)


           .               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the

parties.

2. The petitioner has called in question the decision of

the Selection Committee holding him ineligible for housing TAMBE

J Cri. WP-175-2023.odt

him in the open prison. It is argued that the Selection

Committee has not considered the petitioner's case in proper

perspective. Though the petitioner has overstayed for 136 days

in the year 2015, however, he himself has surrendered and said

aspect has not been taken into account. It is particularly

submitted that after the year 2015, on umpteen time, the

petitioner was released on furlough as well as on parole and on

each occasion, he has surrendered on due date. According to

the petitioner, the said aspect was also not considered by the

Authority. Moreover, it is pointed out that for late surrender,

the petitioner was prosecuted under Section 224 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, in which the Magistrate has stopped the

proceeding, which resulted into closure of the criminal case.

3. The Selection Committee constituted, under Rule 3

sub-clause (i) of Statutory Rules for open prison under Chapter

2 of the Maharashtra Prison Manual, has held the petitioner

ineligible in terms of Rule 4 sub-clause (ii)(d)(h). Thus, the

first ground is that a case was pending against the petitioner in

a Court and secondly he is escapee and there is escape risks. So

far as the first ground under sub-clause (b) is concerned, the

TAMBE

J Cri. WP-175-2023.odt

petitioner has tendered an order of Magistrate showing that the

concerned case was stopped by the Magistrate vide order dated

28.10.2021, and thus, nothing is pending against him in a

Court. As regards to second ground under sub-clause (h) is

concerned, it is submitted that there is no escape risks because

after 2015, the petitioner has surrendered on due date on each

and every occasion. Moreover, it is submitted that though the

petitioner overstayed in the year 2015, however he has

surrendered himself. Besides that the petitioner has pointed out

on exemplary basis that in case of prisoner namely Dinkar

Krushna Narote, though he overstayed for 392 days, his case

was considered. The Selection Committee has to act in terms of

the criteria specified under Rule 4.

4. Having regard to above facts, we are of the view that

the petitioner's case was not considered in proper perspective.

We, therefore, quash and set aside the order holding the

petitioner ineligible and direct the Authority to reconsider the

petitioner's case in the light of above observations and decide

the same afresh in accordance with law, within six weeks from

the date of receipt of communication of this order.

TAMBE

J Cri. WP-175-2023.odt

5. Criminal writ petition is allowed and disposed of in

above terms.

(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

TAMBE