1 Criminal Appeal No.440 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.440 OF 2011 Raju Ukhardu Mali PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mrs.A.S.Mantri, learned counsel for the petitioner. (Appointed) Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 12/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, prays for a limited relief of quashing and setting aside the order by which the petitioner was informed that his application for being sent to open prison has been rejected. We had accordingly appointed Adv.A.S.Mantri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Upon notice being issued to the respondent, the respondent has filed affidavit in reply. 2 Criminal Appeal No.440 of 2011 3. Alongwith affidavit in reply, the order, rejecting the application of the petitioner has been produced before us. It appears that the petitioner, who was earlier in the open prison, was sent to Closed Prison on the ground that a criminal prosecution was pending against the petitioner. The respondent has annexed the relevant rules, which contemplates that normally prisoners would not be sent to open prison in the event of pendancy of any case in Court. The aforesaid rule refers to various other cases, where the prisoners would not normally be sent to the open prison. The order impugned also re-iterates that since a criminal prosecution was pending against the petitioner, the petitioner was sent from open prison to closed prison and the permission in this behalf was sought for by the authorities to permanently place the petitioner in a closed prison. 4. The petitioner, it appears has annexed alongwith his petition a communication addressed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal to the Jail Supdt, Aurangabad informing the Supdt. of Jail that the petitioner had been acquitted in the said case. In that light of the matter, therefore, it is urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order rejecting the application of the petitioner or an order sending the petitioner to a closed prison is un- sustainable. It however appears that the impugned order came to be passed on 15/05/2010, while the petitioner came to be acquitted on 27/07/2010. Thus the acquittal of the petitioner is an event, which is subsequent to the passing of the impugned order. In that light of 3 Criminal Appeal No.440 of 2011 the matter, therefore, the respondent will have to examine the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of his acquittal in the criminal prosecution. 5. Resultantly, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 15/05/2010 and 21/06/2010 and direct the authorities to decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the pending criminal case. The petitioner may, if advised, forward a copy of the judgment of the criminal case, in which the petitioner has been acquitted, to the respondent authorities. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. Fees payable to Mrs. Mantri is quantified at Rs.1,500/- (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2011/cri.w.p.440-11