The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner was granted furlough. The court held he was ineligible due to a prior late parole surrender and his conviction under sections 365 and 366 IPC, which bars furlough under the Maharashtra Prison Manual rules.
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.
Ladda
26-wp-59-13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.59 OF 2013.
Imran Yunus Sayyed
..Petitioner.
Vs
The State of Maharashtra
..Respondent.
Mr Hitesh Shah, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mrs A.S.Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
CORAM :- P.V. HARDAS & A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED:10th APRIL, 2013.
P. C. :-
(1) This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for his release on furlough in the light of the orders passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Pune in favour of the petitioners, dated 13.5.2011 and 1.9.2012.
(2) In respect of the first order about releasing the petitioner on furlough, it is brought to our notice that the order releasing the petitioner on furlough was passed on 13.5.2011, but meanwhile on 2.5.2011, the petitioner had been released on parole for a period of 30 days and the petitioner extended his parole leave for further 60 days and the petitioner surrendered late by 16 days on 17.8.2011. Since the petitioner had been
1/2
Ladda
26-wp-59-13.doc
released on parole, there was no question of the petitioner being released on furlough. In respect of the order dated 1.9.2012, it is brought to our notice that the order releasing the petitioner on furlough was passed oblivious of the amendment in the Maharashtra Prison Manual, Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959 which prohibits grant of furlough to the convict who had been convicted for kidnapping and abduction. The petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under sections 365 and 366 of the IPC, and therefore, the petitioner was not released on furlough. Moreover, there is no provision of carrying forward furlough which accrues to the petitioner.
(3) In that light of the matter, therefore, we do not notice any merit in the present petition and the petition is therefore summarily dismissed.
2/2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to release on furlough given his prior late surrender from parole and conviction for kidnapping.
Whether the amendment in the Maharashtra Prison Manual, Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959 prohibits furlough for convicts of kidnapping and abduction.
Whether there exists a provision for carrying forward unutilized furlough leave for the petitioner.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Imran Yunus Sayyed
The State of Maharashtra
P.V. HARDAS
A.R. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
