✦ Bombay High Court

Shri Bhagawan Aatmaram Bhoir v. Superintendent, Thane Central Jail, Thane

Writ Petition No. 822 of 2011M N GILANI

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Shri Bhagawan Aatmaram Bhoir Age - Adult, R/at. Tisgaon, Tal. Kalyan, Dist. Thane (at present lodged in Thane ] ] ] Central Jail, Thane) ] Petitioner Versus

1. Superintendent, Thane Central Jail, Thane. ] ]

2. State of Maharashtra ] Respondents Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for the Petitioner Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATE : 31st MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P.V. HARDAS, J]:

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2.

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a convict undergoing imprisonment for 1 life seeks his release on parole on the ground of a marriage of his son scheduled to be performed on 6th May 2011.

10.

wp 822-11.doc

4.

According to us, it would be appropriate if the petitioner applies to the Competent Authorities and seeks his release on parole by giving sufficient reasons for his parole. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would present an application in accordance with law within a week from today. The learned APP on instructions states that the application of the petitioner for his release on parole would be decided in accordance with law within three weeks of receipt of the application of the petitioner. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court.

5.

In that light of that matter, therefore, we allow this petition and permit the petitioner to file an application seeking his release on parole and accept the statement of the learned APP that the application of the petitioner, if submitted, would be decided in accordance with law within three weeks of its receipt.

6.

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ M.N. GILANI, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 2

10. wp 822-11.doc 3

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 822 of 2011). ← Search more judgments