1 cri-wp-586-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 586 OF 2011 Dnyaneshwar Bhaskar Patil .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. N. N. Gavankar i/by Mr. Arfan Sait for petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 05, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Rule. 3. Ms. Mhatre, the learned APP, waives service for the respondents. Petition is heard finally. 2 cri-wp-586-11 4. The petitioner was one of the accused in TADA Spl. Case No. 1 of 1996 (originally TADA Case No. 32 of 1993). The trial before the Designated Court resulted in acquittal as per the order dated 16/5/1997. This order of acquittal came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and on 12/1/2000, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the State and convicted five accused, including the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B and 149 of IPC and Section 3(3) of the TADA Act. All the five accused came to be sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 5. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for directions to admit him in the open prison as per Rule 4(1) of the Open Prison Rules. The Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, where the petitioner is presently undergoing sentence has filed affidavit-in-reply and has stated that the Selection Committee for admission to the open prison and headed by the Inspector General of Prisons had met on 6/12/2010 and the case of the petitioner was rejected for admission to the open prison on the ground that as per the report received from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, 3 cri-wp-586-11 Railway Division, Mumbai, the petitioner is having alliance with the crime syndicate run by Bhai Thakur. 6. The petitioner has emphatically pointed out in his petition that his co-accused – Patrick Francis Tuskano has been admitted to the open prison in the year 2008 itself. There is no explanation in the affidavit-in- reply filed as to why the case of the petitioner could be distinguished from the case of his co-accused. We have also perused the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Railway Division, Mumbai and it does not make out any fresh case against the petitioner. Thus the reasons assigned for denying to the petitioner admission to the open prison at Paithan or at any other location is not justified. 7. We, therefore, direct that the ensuing meeting of the Selection Committee for admission to the open prison and headed by the Inspector General of Prisons shall consider the petitioner’s case in relation to the co-accused named hereinabove and the reports, if any, about the antecedents of the petitioner and take a fresh decision, but without being influenced by the earlier decision. The fresh decision shall be communicated to the petitioner through the concerned jail Superintendent 4 cri-wp-586-11 before 31/8/2011. 8. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above directions (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)