SITARAM PANDURANG GABAARE, C.NO. 7615, CENTRAL PRISON, ABAD vs. THE STATE OF MAH

cwp150.12
1
                                         
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.150 OF 2012
Sitaram s/o Pandurang Gaware,
Age­Major, (Con. No.6715),
Central Prison, Aurangabad,
Dist­Aurangabad,
Original R/o­Hingoli District.
                                
...PETITIONER. 
       VERSUS             
1) The State of Maharashtra,
2) Home Secretary,
   Home Department,
   Mantralaya, Mumbai,
3) Inspector General (Prison),
   Maharashtra State, Pune­1,
4) D.I.G. Prison, Aurangabad,
5) Superintendent, Central Prison,
   Aurangabad, Dist­Aurangabad,
6) District Superintendent of Police,
   Hingoli, Dist­Hingoli.   
                                 ...RESPONDENTS.
                     ...
   Shri.R.D. Sanap Advocate appointed for  
   the Petitioner.
   Shri.S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondents. 
                     ...
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::

cwp150.12
2
                
CORAM:   NARESH H. PATIL AND 
                         T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.
                DATE :   29TH MARCH, 2012.
                                 
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :
1.   Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.  
2. The   Petitioner's   application   for   Parole 
Leave was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, 
Aurangabad, by order dated 16th March, 2012.
3. During   the   course   of   hearing   of   the 
Petition   and   after   perusing   the   record   placed 
before us, we noticed that there is abnormal delay 
in   forwarding   police   report,   as   is   noticed   in 
several cases by this Court. On several occasions, 
this   Court   has   issued   directions   to   the 
Authorities,   to   curb   the   delay   in   forwarding 
police report. 
4. On   behalf   of   the   Superintendent   of 
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::

cwp150.12
3
Police, Hingoli, certain record is produced before 
us,   to   demonstrate   that   report   was   submitted   to 
the   Divisional   Commissioner,   Aurangabad.   We   have 
perused the same.
5. It   is   submitted   by   the   learned   A.P.P. 
that   the   Divisional   Commissioner,   Aurangabad   has 
taken serious note regarding problem of receiving 
police   reports   at   a   highly   belated   stage, 
frustrating   the   rights   of   the   prisoners   and 
effective implementation of the orders passed by 
the   Divisional   Commissioner.   The   Divisional 
Commissioner,   Aurangabad,   by   communication   dated 
27th   March,   2012,   made   to   the   Additional   Public 
Prosecutor,   High   Court,   Bench   at   Aurangabad, 
stated   that   for   effective   implementation   of   the 
Government   Circular   dated   1st   August,   2007, 
instructions   have   been   issued   to   the   concerned 
Authorities,   that   henceforth   police   report   be 
issued by Fax/E­mail. We appreciate the efforts of 
the   Divisional   Commissioner,   Aurangabad,   in   this 
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::

cwp150.12
4
regard.   The   said   letter   dated   27th   March,   2012 
issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, 
along with the   other documents regarding police 
report, submitted by the learned A.P.P., are taken 
on record and marked as "X" for identification. A 
copy   of   the   order   passed   by   the   Divisional 
Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejecting application of 
the   Petitioner   for   Parole   Leave,   is   placed   on 
record. The same is taken on record and is treated 
as one of the Annexures to the Petition.
6. There is another feature noticed by this 
Court in the present case, after perusal of the 
original   file   maintained   by   the   Office   of   the 
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.  A note is 
put up in respect of the application filed by the 
prisoner to release him on Parole/Furlough leave, 
by   the   clerk   of   the   Divisional   Commissioner's 
Office.   The   said   note   is   put   up   before   the 
Tahsildar, then Deputy Commissioner and ultimately 
before   the   Divisional   Commissioner,   for 
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::

cwp150.12
5
endorsements. The file is put up with a note by 
the clerk that it would be proper to reject the 
Parole   application.   The   Divisional   Commissioner 
has signed and put a date as "16.3". We have been 
shown a copy of the order purported to be passed 
by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 
16th   March,   2012.   That   order   also   demonstrates 
that     Authority   signing   on   the   same   had   signed 
'for the Divisional Commissioner'.
7. It   is   necessary   that   the   Divisional 
Commissioner applies his/her mind to the facts and 
the material placed before the Authority concerned 
and   thereafter   takes   a   decision   in   this   regard. 
The Divisional Commissioner is entitled to peruse 
the   notes,   endorsements   put   up   by   the 
subordinates, but the application of mind of the 
Divisional   Commissioner,   shall   be   reflected   in 
clear   terms,   which   is   possible   only   if   the 
Divisional   Commissioner   puts   his   opinion   on   the 
material   placed   before   the   Authority   concerned. 
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::

cwp150.12
6
Simply signing below the note put up by the clerk, 
counter­signed   by   the   Tahsildar   or   Deputy 
Commissioner, may give rise to   allegations that 
there was no application of mind on the part of 
the Divisional Commissioner.
8. We direct the Divisional Commissioner, to 
henceforth take note of the observations made by 
us and streamline the procedure of screening such 
applications   and   passing   appropriate   orders   on 
such applications, reflecting application of mind 
of the Divisional Commissioner.
9. Turning   to   the   facts   of   this   case,   the 
application   of   the   Petitioner   for   releasing   on 
Parole Leave, has been rejected by the Divisional 
Commissioner,   due   to   adverse   police   report.   In 
past,   the   Petitioner   was   released   thrice,   on 
leave.   Considering   the   past   conduct   of   the 
Petitioner as a prisoner and the request made by 
the Petitioner in this regard, we are of the view 
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::

cwp150.12
7
that the Divisional Commissioner to re­appreciate 
the   case   again   and   pass   fresh   order.   With   this 
view, we pass following order:
            O R D E R
(A)       The   order   dated   16th 
March,  2012,     passed     by
the     Divisional   Commissioner, 
Aurangabad,   rejecting   the 
application   of   the   Petitioner 
for   Parole   Leave,   is   quashed 
and set aside.
(B)     The   matter   is   remanded 
back   to   the   Divisional 
Commissioner,   Aurangabad   for 
fresh   consideration   of   the 
issue   and   for   passing 
appropriate orders.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::

cwp150.12
8
(C)     We   expect   the 
Superintendent   of   Police, 
Hingoli,   to   comply   with   the 
instructions     issued      by 
the   Divisional   Commissioner, 
Aurangabad,   in   respect   of 
forwarding   the   police   report 
diligently on Fax or E­mail, in 
future.
(D)     Rule  is   made  absolute   on 
the terms indicated as above.
(E)  Authenticated copy of this 
order   be   provided   to   the 
learned   A.P.P.   for   forwarding 
the   same   to   the   Divisional 
Commissioner,   Aurangabad   and 
the   Superintendent   of   Police, 
Hingoli.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::

cwp150.12
9
(F)   The counsel was appointed 
for   the   Petitioner.   The 
Secretary,   High   Court   Legal 
Services   Sub   Committee, 
Aurangabad   to   pay   professional 
fees   to the  counsel  appointed, 
as per rules.   
[T.V. NALAWADE, J.]          [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 
asb/MAR12                           
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:55:50 :::