Petitioner, a prisoner, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his furlough application by Deputy Inspector General of Prisons on grounds of late surrender. The High Court found no error in the rejection order.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2009
Bharat Krishnarao Mohadikar. ... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.
Shri. V.M. Humbe, Advocate, appointed for the
petitioner.
Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for respondent.
CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ.
DATE : 6th AUGUST 2009
PER COURT :
1)Heard.
2)The petitioner’s request for furlough
leave was rejected by the Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons, Aurangabad by an order dated
21st May 2009. One of the grounds is that while
the petitioner was released on furlough on
3-10-2007 the petitioner did not surrender in
2
time and he was arrested by police after 93 days
of the date of the surrender. Therefore the
Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad
by referring to the provision of rules 4(4),(6)
and (10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and
Parole) Rules, 1959 exercised his jurisdiction by
rejecting the application.
3)The learned counsel Shri. Humbe has
brought to our notice a circular issued by the
Home Department dated 25th October 2001. According
to the counsel, the police report is in favour of
the petitioner and there is no need to assume
that the petitioner would repeat the same
performance by not surrendering in time.
tendency of over staying and not surrendering in
time to the jail authorities is growing. The
petitioner’s case is one of such cases.
According to the APP, the police report is not
entirely in favour of the petitioner.
3
5)We have considered the submissions
advanced, perused the Furlough rules and
necessary papers placed before us.
6)The tendency of overstaying the leave
period and to disappear after the person is
released on leave is noticed in some cases
brought before us. We had even called for a chart
of cases wherein a list was provided to this
Court regarding persons who did not surrender to
jail authorities after they were released on
parole or furlough leave. The State Government in
Home Department is required to look into the
legislative aspect of the conditions of
releasing persons on parole and furlough leave.
Some mechanism is required to be devised so that
tendency of overstay and not to surrender to jail
authorities is curtailed, curbed and discouraged.
7)In the facts of this case, we find that
the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Aurangabad has rejected the application of the
4
petitioner. At this stage we do not find any
error in the order. No interference is required
by this Court.
8)The writ petition is dismissed.
Authenticated copy be provided to the APP. The
Registry to forward a copy of this order to the
Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government
of Maharashtra and the Inspector General of
Prisons, Maharashtra State.
9)Counsel Mr. Humbe was appointed for the
petitioner. The High Court Legal Services Sub
Committee Aurangabad shall pay the fees to the
counsel as per rules.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)
rsl/ crwp.565.09
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's furlough application due to the default in surrendering on return is sustainable in law.
Bharat Krishnarao Mohadikar
The State of Maharashtra
NARESH H PATIL
SHRIHARI P DAVARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court