{"id":95904,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-05T06:39:02","modified_gmt":"2018-02-05T01:09:02","slug":"ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                  1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                                               \n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.\n\n               Criminal Writ Petition No.576 of 2010\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     Ramu Harishchandra Bawane,\n     Convict No. C\/7354,\n     Central Prison,ig\n     Nagpur.                                    ....            Petitioner.\n\n                                Versus\n                  \n     1.   Deputy Inspector General\n          of Prisons [East Region],\n          Nagpur.\n      \n\n\n     2.   The Superintendent,\n   \n\n\n\n          Central Prison,\n          Nagpur.                               ....          Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                *****\n\n     Petition received by Post.\n\n     Mr.   T.A.   Mirza,    Addl.        Public         Prosecutor             for\n\n\n\n\n\n     respondents.\n                                *****\n\n\n                                 CORAM     :     A.H. JOSHI AND\n                                                 A.R. JOSHI,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                  Date     :      29th November, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:\n<\/p>\n
     1.          Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.                          Heard<\/p>\n
     finally.\n<\/p>\n
     2.          Petitioner is undergoing sentence for conviction in<\/p>\n
     Central Prison, Nagpur.             On his application, he has been<\/p>\n
     granted furlough.         He has been asked to furnish a surety<\/p>\n
     having his ordinary residence in              Maharashtra.           This seems<\/p>\n
     to   have   been<\/p>\n
                        done   in    the    background     that      petitioner         is<\/p>\n
     domiciled of State of Gujarat. Petitioner is aggrieved by<\/p>\n
     the order directing that the surety should be of a person<\/p>\n
     who is an ordinary resident of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
     3.          We had directed learned APP to take instructions<\/p>\n
     from Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and suggest the<\/p>\n
     modalities    which   can      be   adopted   in    the    case      of    present<\/p>\n
     nature to avoid insistence of surety of the nature ordered.\n<\/p>\n
     4.          Learned   APP   has       tendered   an    Affidavit-in-Reply.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                         th
\n     This affidavit accompanies copy of Govt. Circular dated 16<\/p>\n
     December, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                 It is prescribed in Direction No.6 contained in<\/p>\n
     this Circular that whenever the prisoner hails from other<\/p>\n
     State, a surety from State of Maharashtra be asked.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.      We have noticed that such a condition cannot be<\/p>\n
     validly enforced in the background of Judgment of Hon ble<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court in case of Moti Ram & others Vs. State of<\/p>\n
     Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1978 SC 1594], where the Hon ble Supreme<\/p>\n
     Court has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               32.     To   add   insult   to   injury,   the
\n              magistrate has demanded sureties from his own
\n              district! (We assume the allegation in the
\n              petition).   What is a Malayalees, Kannadiga,<\/p>\n
              Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged
\n              misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass<\/p>\n
              Chowk?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni
\n                       He   cannot   have   sureties
\n              properties in these distant places.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       owning
\n                                                      He may
\n              not know any one there and might have come in<\/p>\n
              a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha,
\n              Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest
\n              achieved by such provincial allergies.     What
\n              law prescribes sureties from outside or non-
\n              regional   language  applications?   What   law<\/p>\n
              prescribes   the  geographical   discrimination
\n              implicit in asking for sureties from the court
\n              district? This tendency takes many forms,<\/p>\n
              sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic,
\n              sometimes legalistic.    Art. 14 protects all
\n              Indians qua Indians, within the territory of
\n              India.   Art. 350 sanctions representation to
\n              any authority, including a court, for redress<\/p>\n
              of grievances in any language used in the
\n              Union of India. Equality before the law
\n              implies that even a vakalat or affirmation
\n              made in any State language according to the
\n              law in that State must be accepted everywhere
\n              in the territory of India save where a valid<\/p>\n
              legislation    to    the    contrary    exists.
\n              Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in Free
\n              India, and likewise many other minorities.
\n              This divagation has become necessary to still
\n              the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the
\n              process of making Indians aliens in their own
\n              homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
     6.        Sum and substance of the dictum of Hon ble Apex<\/p>\n
     Court is that conditions,               compliance        whereof      is    akin to<\/p>\n
     impossible,     should      not    be     imposed,        as    such        condition<\/p>\n
     operates as a clog on liberty.\n<\/p>\n
     7.        Learned APP has argued that if the sureties from<\/p>\n
     other States      are accepted,         and prisoner           flees     away      from<\/p>\n
     hands of law, it would be an endless job to catch hold of<\/p>\n
     such   sureties    and     the    prisoner       after     completion         of    his<\/p>\n
     parole.\n<\/p>\n
     8.        We    have     analyzed       and      tested      this    argument         of<\/p>\n
     learned APP.\n<\/p>\n
               We observe that this submission is, on the face of<\/p>\n
     it, fallacious.\n<\/p>\n
     9.        The     scheme    of    law       of    asking       surety       does    not<\/p>\n
     contemplate that:-\n<\/p>\n
               [a]   The sureties would themselves go to search
\n                     and secure the physical presence of the
\n                     prisoner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               [b]   The    sureties     themselves          to     perform       what
\n                     the prisoner was to do.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               [c]   The sureties would watch and ward and \/ or
\n                     monitor the prisoner round the clock.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
     10.         In case of breach, the surety pays or loses the<\/p>\n
     amount of bond. What is contemplated while insisting on<\/p>\n
     surety bond is to ensure              the moral pressure of the surety<\/p>\n
     on the mind and behaviour of the person whose promise and<\/p>\n
     conduct is assured by the surety.\n<\/p>\n
     11.        By virtue of what the surety has done, i.e., he<\/p>\n
     undertook to be a surety, and has executed a bond etc.,<\/p>\n
     exerts a moral pressure on the person for whose freedom, the<\/p>\n
     comes   forward<\/p>\n
     surety bond is executed. It is believed that the surety<\/p>\n
                           to   bind     himself    because      the        surety     has<\/p>\n
     occasion    to    know       the    prisoner     and    there      exists       some<\/p>\n
     relations      arising       from    some     nexus,    such      as    affinity,<\/p>\n
     friendship, relations by blood or marriage etc.                        Therefore,<\/p>\n
     the beneficiary is expected to take care of the prestige of<\/p>\n
     the promise of the surety.\n<\/p>\n
     12.        When the prisoner does not have any such nexus with<\/p>\n
     the   people     in    the    State    where    he     is   imprisoned,          such<\/p>\n
     sureties may either be hired or fictitious, and even when<\/p>\n
     genuine, would not render any help to further the cause of<\/p>\n
     asking of the sureties.\n<\/p>\n
     13.        In order to overcome this situation, namely that<\/p>\n
     the prisoner does not flee from the hands of law, at the<\/p>\n
     same time his liberties are not abrogated, the State will<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           6<\/span>
\n     have to devise some modalities.\n<\/p>\n
     14.      Wisdom is always a presumption in the power and<\/p>\n
     authority of rule-makers, and we hope it to flow from the<\/p>\n
     Executive while devising modalities.               The Govt., ought, in<\/p>\n
     its rule-making power, devise such modalities as would be<\/p>\n
     workable,   and would    result      in respecting          the     rights      and<\/p>\n
     concessions of prisoner, and would also be efficacious in<\/p>\n
     proper working.\n<\/p>\n
     15.<\/p>\n
              We express that we need not formally strike down<\/p>\n
     the rule referred to in foregoing Paragraph No.4, however,<\/p>\n
     in view of what the Hon ble Supreme Court has held in Moti<\/p>\n
     Ram s case [cited supra], said condition                  be appropriately<\/p>\n
     substituted.\n<\/p>\n
     16.      Learned APP, at this stage, urges that State be<\/p>\n
     given a longer time to take a decision.                      The request is<\/p>\n
     reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
     17.      We    grant   ten   weeks       time   to    the     Govt.,      to    re-\n<\/p>\n
     consider the condition referred to herein before and give<\/p>\n
     further and appropriate directions within ten weeks from<\/p>\n
     today.   Compliance be reported within two weeks thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
     18.      Copy of this order be supplied to learned APP as<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span>
\n     per   rules    for   communication     to    the      Principal          Chief<\/p>\n
     Secretary,    Home   Department,   Mantralaya,        Mumbai,       and     due<\/p>\n
     compliance.\n<\/p>\n
               Rule is accordingly made absolute.\n<\/p>\n
           JUDGE                                                JUDGE\n\n                                  -0-0-0-0-\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     |hedau|         \n                    \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:39:33 :::<\/span>\n            8<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n               \n              \n          \n       \n      \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:39:33 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010 Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No.576 of 2010 Ramu Harishchandra Bawane, Convict No. C\/7354, Central Prison,ig Nagpur. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. Deputy Inspector […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-05T01:09:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-05T01:09:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1064,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-05T01:09:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-05T01:09:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-05T01:09:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":1064,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010","name":"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-05T01:09:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-harishchandra-bawane-vs-deputy-inspector-general-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramu Harishchandra Bawane vs Deputy Inspector General on 29 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95904","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95904"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95904\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}