Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Tukaram Anant Jaykar C-10516 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2018 cites

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 - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 01:25:34 ::: (Judgment) (6) Cri. W.P. No. 01771 of 2017 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 44 - D P Madon - Full Document

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 :
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 29 - V Tehsilramani - Full Document

Rubina Suleman Memon vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 December, 2016

07. So far as the ground, that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, is concerned, same is not tenable. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, filing of an appeal against conviction and sentence is right of a convict. It has no nexus with grant or rejection of furlough leave. So also, ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the convict was undergoing sentence for conviction under the provisions of Terrorist and Destructive Activities Act, 1987, and rigors of the notification dated 23.02.2012, more particularly, Sub-Rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, were fully applicable to the petitioner therein. Such is not the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner is not suffering punishment for any act under the provisions of TADA. The last ground, that there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent, is also not tenable. The leave sanctioning authority can suo motu call for recommendation or otherwise from the Jail Superintendent.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 34 - V Tehsilramani - Full Document

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]. "
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1