Partly allowed

Mahesh Tarachand Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jun 2015WP/643/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay held that the petitioner is eligible for furlough leave. The court ruled that the existence of other brothers and a minor delay in surrender do not invalidate the petitioner's entitlement under the Prisons Rules. The authorities were directed to grant the leave within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to grant furlough leave considering the petitioner's eligibility and not refusing it on ground of other brothers or one-day surrender delay, to be decided within fo

Mahesh Tarachand Suryawanshi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

cwp643.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.643 OF 2015

¶6

Mahesh s/o Tarachand Suryawanshi,
Age-Major, occu:Nil (Con. No.C-7343),
Original R/o-Khutphal, Dist-Khandwa,
Presently in Central Prison, Aurangabad.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

2) D.I.G. Prison, Aurangabad,

¶11

3) District Superintendent of Police,
 Aurangabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

...

¶14

 Mr.D.Y. Nandedkar Advocate appointed (Absent)
 for Petitioner.
 Mr.M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for Respondents.

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶17

 DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2015

¶18

ORAL ORDER :

¶19

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard

¶20

cwp643.15

¶21

¶22

finally with consent of the parties.

¶23

2.This Petition takes exception to the

¶24

order dated 20th March 2015 passed by the Deputy
I.G. Prison, Aurangabad (Central) refusing the

¶25

request of the Petitioner for furlough leave.

¶26

3.It appears that the Petitioner was

¶27

convicted for the offence punishable under Section
376 of I.P.C. and was ordered to undergo 7 years
imprisonment. In pursuant to said order of
conviction, the Petitioner is undergoing sentence

¶28

in Central Prison, Aurangabad from the year 2012.
On earlier occasion the Petitioner did apply for
Parole leave and his prayer for grant of Parole

¶29

leave was favourably considered and he was
released for 30 days on 24th July, 2014, by the

¶30

order issued by the Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad. The Petitioner did apply for extension

¶31

of parole leave on two occasions and the authority
favourably considered his request and extended the

¶32

cwp643.15

¶33

¶34

period of parole leave by 60 days. However,
according to the Respondents, the Petitioner did
not surrender on due date i.e. 23rd September 2014
but surrendered on 24th September 2014.

¶35

4.The Petitioner applied for furlough leave
on 15th June 2014 and requested for releasing him
on furlough leave. However his prayer for
releasing on furlough leave was rejected on the
ground that there are four other brothers who can
look after his mother. Respondents have given one
of the ground in the reply for not favourably
considering his prayer in the Petition that he
surrendered late by one day when he was granted
parole leave.

¶36

5.We have considered the pleadings in the
Petition, annexures thereof and the averments in
the reply filed by the Respondents. It is not in
dispute that in view of the sub-rule(2) of Rule
(3) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough And Parole)

¶37

cwp643.15

¶38

¶39

Rules, 1959, the Petitioner is eligible to be
considered for releasing on furlough leave. Sub-
rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules, reads thus:

¶40

"3. When Prisoner may be granted
furlough.-

¶41

(1).....................................

¶42

(2) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to
imprisonment for a period exceeding five
years may be released on furlough for a
period of two weeks at a time for every
two years of actual imprisonment
undergone:

¶43

 Provided that a prisoner sentenced to
imprisonment for more than five years but
not to imprisonment for life may be
released on furlough every year instead
of every two years during the last five
years of his unexpired period of
sentence.

¶44

 Provided further that a prisoner
sentenced to life imprisonment may be
released on furlough every year instead

¶45

cwp643.15

¶46

¶47

of every two years after he completes
seven years actual imprisonment."

¶48

6.As already observed, the Petitioner is in

¶49

jail for more than two years and entitled for
release on furlough leave by invoking afore
mentioned sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said
Rules. Therefore, merely because there are other

¶50

four brothers to look after his ailing mother, it

¶51

cannot be valid ground so as to deprive the
Petitioner from enjoying furlough leave as
provided under relevant Rules. So far as delay of

¶52

one day in surrendering by the Petitioner when he
was released on parole leave is concerned, it is
not in dispute that the Government has prescribed
the procedure so as to deduct the remission from
accumulated remission for delay in reporting late.

¶53

7.In that view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to be
released on furlough leave in view of the

¶54

cwp643.15

¶55

¶56

provisions of Sub rule (2) or Rule 3 of the said
Rules. Therefore, we direct the Respondent
authorities to consider the prayer of the
Petitioner for furlough leave if he is otherwise
eligible, but not to raise the ground that there
are other four brothers to look after his mother.
The Respondent authorities to re-consider the
earlier decision and take the fresh decision in
the light of the observations made herein before,
as expeditiously as possible, however within FOUR
WEEKS from today.

¶57

8.Rule made absolute on above terms. Writ

¶58

Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

Mahesh Tarachand Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Tarachand Suryawanshi 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

Shivaji S/O Ganpatrao Waghe and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Muzhir Ahmed Itbar Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Badrinath S/O Sakharam Dhembare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishnu S/O Sopan Gavhane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

1 Ranchhod S/O Poulad Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

1 Ramesh S/O Pandurang Mundkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.