Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Arun Gulab Gawli vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 April, 1998
In both these petitions,
the Division Bench of this Court had taken note of
the above referred judgment of the Division Bench at
Nagpur Bench, in the matter of Arun s/o. Gulab Gawli &
another (supra) and the benefit was then given to the
petitioners therein.
Shivaji Atmaji Sawant & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 14 February, 1986
08. There is no dispute, that the very circular
which is referred to in the order prevents the
prisoner to avail the benefit and statement was made
before the Division Bench at Nagpur Bench, that the
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 01:25:08 :::
(Judgment) (6) Cri. W.P. No. 0304 of 2018
State Government is in process to re-think the rule
and if necessary, cause an amendment to rule. We may
also take note of the decision by Division Bench of
this Court at this Bench, in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 1010 of 2017, in the matter of Shivaji Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & others, decided on 13.10.2017.
S. Sant Singh @ Pilli Singh vs Secretary, Home Department, ... on 22 December, 2005
09. Further, we may refer to a Full Bench
judgment of this Court at principal seat in the
matter of S. Sant Singh @ Pilli Singh Ajit Singh Kalyani Vs. Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra & others [2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 422
= 2006(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 743]. Though this is the case
which was pronounced prior to Government Circular
dated 26.08.2016, yet it appears that at that time
also, there was similar provision, wherein it has
been observed in paras 26 and 27 of the judgment,
thus :
Rubina Suleman Memon vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 December, 2016
04. Learned Advocate (appointed) for the
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 01:25:08 :::
(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0304 of 2018
petitioner submitted that the grounds for rejection
of furlough leave are vague and unsustainable. He
submits, that though police report is stated to be
adverse against the petitioner, no explanation is
given for arriving at the conclusion. He further
submits, that filing of an appeal against conviction
and sentence is a statutory right of the convict. So
also, judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rubina
Suleman Memon (supra) is not applicable to the case of
the petitioner as the petitioner is not convicted
under the Terrorist and Destructive Activities Act,
1987. He has, therefore, urged that the petition be
allowed and the petitioner may be released on
furlough leave.
Section 389 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 432 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jayant Veerappa Shetty And Another vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 5 September, 1985
27. From this, it is clear that the powers of the State to
grant Parole are not fettered even if the appeal of the convict
is pending before the Court. Thus, the Competent Authority
or the Government would have the legal competence to
entertain an application for parole by following the procedure
set out under the Prison Rules to meet the contingencies
stated therein. The exercise of such power would not be in
any way be in conflict with the powers exercised under
section 389 and/or Section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. It is also evident that the amendments carried out
in this scheme of Rules 19 and 25 in the year 1989 have
provided for adequate safeguards so as to ensure that the
benefit of parole leave is not misused or abused so as to
defeat or nullify the Courts order passed under Section 389 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure as was noticed in Jayant
Veerappa Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra [1986(1)
Bom.C.R.311 = 1986 Cri.L.J. 1298]. "
1