Disposed

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Apr 2007APPLN/6807/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard an application by a life convict regarding retrospective remarks affecting his prospects for remission or furlough. Noting that furlough was granted despite remarks and no offence was registered for the behaviour, the court held remarks would not affect future chances.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed off in view of the statement by the learned APP that future applications would be decided on merits.

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

[1]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6807 OF 2005

¶4

 Baig Salim Abdul Razzak ..Applicant
 V/s

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

¶6

 Mr. R. R.Mahagaonkar, Advocate appointed for the
 applicant.

¶7

 Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J.

¶9

DATE : 3RD APRIL, 2007.

¶10

 P.C.

¶11

 . Heard Mr Mahagaonkar, learned Counsel for the
 applicant and Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State
 Perused the relevant record.

¶12

 2. As noted in the order dated 26th February, 2007,

¶13

 though the number of points have been raised in the
 application, the applicant has limited his grievance to
 two grounds.

¶14

 (a) It is the case of the applicant that whenever he
 makes application for furlough the said application is
 rejected on account of remarks dated 24/2/2004 put by

¶15

[2]

¶16

 the Jailor of Kolhapur Central Jail.

¶17

 (b) The applicant is life convict and he apprehends
 that on account of said remark, he will not be entitled
 to any remission or furlough leave and therefore, he is
 not likely to be prematurely released as contemplated
 under Section 433-A of Cr.P.C.

¶18

 3. It appears that when he had made an application
 for furlough, the Superintendent of Kolhapur Central
 Jail had remarked, "his behaviour is not good, he is in
 habit of instigating the other prisoners in his circle
 and if he is released on furlough, he is not likely to
 come back to jail. Therefore, he should not be released
 on furlough". These remarks were made on 24/2/2004. In
 spite of the said remarks, he was granted furlough from
 time to time and as per the letter dated 20th
 February,2007 from the Central Jail Kolhapur till 30th
 June, 2006 he was granted furlough for 284 days. On
 28.7.2006 he was permanently transferred from Kolhapur
 Jail to the Central Jail, Mumbai. Till his transfer on
 28th July 2006, no offence related to his behaviour in
 jail was registered. In view of this, the remarks made
 by the Jail Superintendent in February, 2004 are not

¶19

[3]

¶20

 likely to affect the chances of getting his remission or

¶21

 furlough leave in future. Mrs. Deshkukh, learned APP
 makes a statement that as and when he will make an
 application for furlough in future or as and when the
 question of grant of remission will arise, it would be
 decided on its own merits and the record without being
 influenced by the remarks made by the Jail
 Superintendent on 24/2/2004, as no offence related to
 his behaviour in jail is registered.

¶22

 4. In view of the statement made by Mrs. Deshmukh,
 APP the application stands disposed off.

¶23

(J.H. BHATIA, J.)

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Digambar Salunkhe and Anr.

Anwar Abdul Raur Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babasaheb Bhimrao Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shivshankar Revanisddha Kabade

The State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Hari Hire

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Vithal Phadtare