P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Pratap Tukaram Godse v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors - (High Court of Bombay) (14 Sep 2021)

If the proposed surety is not enough to control the activities of Prisoner in case of furlough leave, Prisoner will be liable to denial of relief

MANU/MH/2601/2021

Criminal

Present Petition has been filed against the orders dated 5.3.2020 and 8.9.2020 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The Petitioner's case is that he was arrested in relation to C.R. No. 82 of 2007 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was granted bail by the Sessions Court, Mumbai. However, the Crime Branch Unit No. 3 reinvestigated the case and invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999(MCOC Act) and arrested the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Special Judge convicted the Petitioner in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act and sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment. Against the said judgment of the Sessions Court, the Petitioner had preferred a Criminal Appeal before this Court, however, the said Appeal was dismissed.

The grounds taken in the petition, the annexure thereto and report received from the jail authority have been carefully perused by this Court. When the Petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2013 for 28 days, instead of surrendering before the jail authorities on completion of the aforesaid furlough period, the Petitioner absconded and remained outside the jail for 602 days, the Petitioner was required to be arrested and brought back to the jail. Therefore the past conduct of the Petitioner in not surrendering to the jail authorities on completion of furlough leave granted to him and overstay of about two years and the fact that he was arrested by the police and brought back to the jail, disentitles him from seeking any relief from this Court. In addition to the said reason, it appears that the cases are pending against the Petitioner. It is also apprehended that the proposed surety suggested by the Petitioner may not be in a position to control the activities of the Petitioner in case of his release on furlough leave.

Hence it can be concluded upon careful perusal of the reasons assigned in the impugned order, that the said reasons are not perverse and are in consonance with the record of the Petitioner. Hence this Court was unable to persuade ourselves to grant the reliefs as sought by the Petitioner. Petition Rejected.

Tags : SURETY   FURLOUGH LEAVE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved