Dismissed

Shahnawaj Abdul Kadar Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2015WP/818/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking furlough. The petitioner, convicted under TADA and sentenced to life imprisonment, claimed eligibility. The Court held that the conviction falls under amended Rule 4(13) of the Parole and Furlough Rules, barring furlough, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Furlough application and appeal were rejected; the criminal writ petition was dismissed.

Shahnawaj Abdul Kadar Qureshi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

jdk 1 7.cri.wp.818.14.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 818 OF 2014

¶3

Shahanawaj Abdul Kadar Kureshi C-15143, lodged at Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.

¶4

.. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

.. Respondent

¶8

Ms. Sonia Miskin Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mr. A.S. Shitole A.P.P. for the State

¶9

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J. & DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶10

DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2015

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶13

2 The petitioner has preferred an application for furlough on 17.6.2013. The said application came to be rejected on 21.10.2013 by the D.I.G. (Prisons), Western Region,

¶14

Pune. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Director General of Police and

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

jdk 2 7.cri.wp.818.14.doc

¶17

Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune which came to be rejected by order dated 10.1.2014. It was rejected mainly in view of the amended Rule 4(13) of Chapter XXXVII of the Parole and Furlough Rules to Prisoners in Maharashtra Prisons Manual 1979. Rule 4 thereof deals with categories of prisoners who shall not be considered for release on furlough.

¶18

Amended Rule 4(13) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 as published in the Govt. Gazette Notification Part-IV dated 23.2.2012 issued by the Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, reads as under:

¶19

" In rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Rules"), after sub-rule (10), the following sub-rules shall be inserted, namely:---

¶20

(11)

¶21

(12)

¶22

(13) Prisoners convicted for offences such as dacoity, terrorist crimes, kidnapping, smuggling including those convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and foreigner prisoners;"

¶23

3 It is seen that the petitioner was earlier convicted by

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

jdk 3 7.cri.wp.818.14.doc

¶26

the TADA Court, Mumbai in the Bombay Bomb Blast Special Case No. 1 of 1993 under various Sections of TADA. He was sentenced to death in the said case. The petitioner then preferred SLP (Cri.) No. 637-638 of 2008 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court commuted the sentence of death and instead, awarded sentence of life imprisonment till natural death.

¶27

4 Looking to the facts of the case in which the petitioner is involved, the case of the petitioner clearly falls under amended Rule 4(13) of the Chapter XXXVII of the Furlough and Parole Rules to prisoners. In this view of the matter, we cannot find any error in the order rejecting the application for furlough of the petitioner as well as the order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, hence, rule is discharged. Petition is dismissed.

¶28

5 Legal fees of advocate appointed for the petitioner shall be paid as per Rules.

¶29

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶30

kandarkar

Shahnawaj Abdul Kadar Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnawaj Abdul Kadar Qureshi 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

Chhagan Anaji Ghanchi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilkanth Laxman Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khaja Jamal Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Shivdatta @ Biltu Subhodhchandra Sah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Yasin Chhutan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Tukaram Kasbe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.