A prisoner convicted challenging the rejection of his furlough leave application for 2008. The court held that the earlier furlough in 2007 lapsed regarding carry-over and found no jurisdiction to interfere. Authorities were directed to adhere to the stipulated time frame for applications.
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.799 OF 2009
Mohamed Moin Faridulla Qureshi ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.P. Piratwad, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for the respondents
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.
DATED : 15th September, 2009.
ORAL ORDER (PER DAVARE, J.):
Qureshi has preferred an application for furlough leave on 19.9.2008. D.I.G. (Prisons) called police report. However, it was adverse. Hence, D.I.G. (Prisons), Aurangabad rejected the said application by order dated 21.7.2009. Being aggrieved and
2
dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioner convict has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the said order and requesting to release the petitioner convict on furlough leave.
3
dated 2.4.2009, and issued directions to release the petitioner convict on furlough for 14 days on the terms and conditions specified therein. Accordingly, the prisoner convict was released on furlough leave on 28.4.2009 and he surrendered on due date i.e. on 13.5.2009 in pursuance of the application for the year 2007 i.e. 17.9.2007.
“Rule 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Note 1.-............................................. Note 2.-.............................................
“Note 3.-If at any time, a prisoner who could have been granted furlough is either not granted or is refused the same, the period for which he could have been granted the furlough shall not be carried forward but shall lapse.”
4
5
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, present petition deserves to be rejected and same stands rejected accordingly.
[ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.]
[ NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
fmp/crwp79909
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to carry forward furlough leave for the year 2008 after being granted leave in 2007.
Whether the prison authorities exercised their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India properly.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohamed Moin Faridulla Qureshi
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
