Dismissed

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2012WP/3612/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Writ Petition challenging the rejection of a furlough application due to a 338-day reporting delay and an adverse police report. The Court held that forfeiture of remission is not a defense for rejection, while adverse police reports alone do not justify rejection, but the order was otherwise upheld.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Writ Petition was dismissed, subject to the observation that the adverse police report alone was insufficient for rejection, but the default in reporting was a valid bar.

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp3612-12

¶2

jp chavan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3612 OF 2012

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ms. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, appointed Advocate. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, APP, for the State

¶7

P.C.

¶8

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has been appointed to espouse the cause of the petitioner. Heard learned APP for the State.

¶9

The challenge in this petition received through jail is to the order dated 27^th July, 2012 passed by the Competent Authority by which the application for grant of furlough under the provisions of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 has been rejected. The order has been confirmed in appeal. The prayer for furlough has been rejected on the grounds incorporated in Clauses Nos. 4 and 10 of Rule 4 of the said Rules. It is observed that there is adverse police report which records an apprehension that law and order situation will be created, if the petitioner is released on furlough. The second ground is that on 14^th May, 2008 the petitioner was

¶10

1/3

¶11

wp3612-12

¶12

released on furlough and there was delay of 338 days in reporting to the prison and in fact police arrested the petitioner and brought him to jail.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for the delay in reporting, the petitioner has been penalized by forfeiting remission to the extent of 1690 days, and therefore, now the petitioner cannot be again penalized by rejecting the furlough. She submitted that adverse police is no ground as it is not the case that while the petitioner was earlier released on furlough leave, he has engaged in any objectionable conduct.

¶14

We have considered the submissions. Clause 10 of Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that prisoner shall not be considered for release on furlough leave, if at any time he has defaulted in any way in surrendering himself at appropriate time after release on parole or on furlough. In the present case, the default is of as many as of 338 days. The fact that the petitioner has been penalized by forfeiting remission is not relevant as, clause 10 of Rule 4 provides that in such a case, prisoner shall not be considered for releasing on furlough. If according to the petitioner any illegality has been committed as regards forfeiture of remission, it is for the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy for challenging the same .

¶15

As far as the ground of adverse police report is concerned, we may note here that when the petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2008, it is not the case that he has committed any breach or he has committed any misconduct.

¶16

2/3

¶17

wp3612-12

¶18

Therefore, though on the ground of adverse police report, the application for furlough could not have been rejected, the rejection on the other ground cannot be faulted with.

¶19

Subject to what is observed above, the petition is dismissed.

¶20

A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the petitioner through the

¶21

concerned jail authorities.

¶22

( S.S. SHINDE, J )

¶23

( A.S. OKA, J )

¶24

3/3

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Satya Priya Rakesh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganpat Bhikaji Bamne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Feroz Mapkhan and Ors. Vs Nasir Khan Mushtaq Khan and Anr.

Rajagopalan Sridhar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manisha Kaluram Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vipin Bhishendas Bhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.