PARSHURAM GANPAT NALAVADE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned APP states that in view of the above, the impugned order will be withdrawn and the matter will be reconsidered within a period of three weeks from today. This statement is accepted. Let the matter be reconsidered.
- Para 55. We hope and trust that in future the prison authorities will peruse the entire record carefully and pass orders. Petition is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)
Judgment
Mr. N. N. Gawankar i/b Arfan Sait for the petitioner Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 28th January, 2010 P.C. On 18/2010 we had directed that Mr. Jagan Nath, Special Inspector General of Police (Jail), Central Region, Aurangabad should remain present in our court because we found several mistakes in his orders and affidavits. Accordingly Mr. Jagan Nath is present in the court. In the impugned order it is stated that copy of the application filed by the petitioner has been forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon for police report. Admittedly Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon is not concerned with this case. The application should have been forwarded to Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. Similarly it is stated in the order that as regards application for furlough, the Superintendent of Police, Thane Rural has sent police report that, if the petitioner is released on furlough there is danger to the lives of the complainant, witnesses and their family members. The petitioner is a resident of Bombay, therefore, on this aspect the police report from the Commissioner of Police, Bombay should have been called for. This is the second mistake.
Learned APP tells us that Superintendent of Police, Thane’s report was called because the surety is from Thane but the order does not indicate that this report was called to ascertain whether the surety is acceptable or not. It clearly states that the report states that if the petitioner is released on furlough, there is danger to the complainant and his family. Therefore, the furlough is denied to the petitioner, relying on a wrong report. Mr. Gawankar tells us that Kasturba Marg Police Station at Borivali, had sent a report which was placed before the 3rd respondent but inadvertently it was not considered.
Learned APP states that in view of the above, the impugned order will be withdrawn and the matter will be reconsidered within a period of three weeks from today. This statement is accepted. Let the matter be reconsidered.
Operative part
We hope and trust that in future the prison authorities will peruse the entire record carefully and pass orders. Petition is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 28 Jan 2010. The bench was RANJANA DESAI, MRIDULA BHATKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.