The Single Judge dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's furlough application. The Court held that furlough is not an absolute right and granted remission for jail overstay does not constitute double punishment for the same breach of discipline.
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.
3. cri wp 1797-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1797 OF 2016
Dharmaraj @ Sai Laxman Das .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 13, 2016.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
3.12.2014. The said application came to be rejected by
order dated 29.4.2015. The appeal preferred against the
order of rejection came to be dismissed, hence, this petition.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 6
3. cri wp 1797-16.doc
be rejected on the ground that on 20.11.2013, when the petitioner was released on parole, he committed another offence and he did not surrender in time. The petitioner was released on parole on 20.11.2013 for a period of 30 days. The said period was extended by a further period of 30 days. Thus, the petitioner was granted extension of parole till 20.1.2014, however, on 11.1.2014, the petitioner committed
an offence which was registered as C.R. No. 23/14 of Tilak Nagar Police Station. The said C.R. is under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC. Though the petitioner had to surrender on 20.1.2014, he did not surrender in time and there was delay
of seven days in surrendering. The petitioner states that on account of overstay, his remission was cut by two days for
each day of overstay. That is for seven days of overstay, remission was cut of 14 days. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that he has been punished twice for the same cause. The first punishment for overstay was cutting of remission and the second punishment for overstay was
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 6
3. cri wp 1797-16.doc
rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that he has been punished twice for the same offence.
5. The case of the petitioner is also that it is a right of a
prisoner to be released on furlough, hence, his application could not have been rejected and he ought to have been
granted furlough. As far as this contention is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Suresh Pandurang Darvakar1 has observed that, " .............. But release on furlough cannot be said to be an
absolute right of the prisoner as culled out from Rule 17".
Rule 17 reads as under:-
Thus, the contention of the petitioner that a prisoner
has a right to be released on furlough and his application for
furlough cannot be rejected has no merit.
1 AIR 2006 SC 2471 : 2006 ALL M.R. (Cri) 1839 (S.C.)
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 6
3. cri wp 1797-16.doc
been punished twice for the same offence. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been punished twice on account of overstay which cannot be allowed. Similar contention was raised in the case of Buwaji
Sahadeo Hazare Vs. The State of Maharashtra2 wherein
the Division Bench negated the said contention. In the case
of Buwaji (supra), the contention was raised that on account of overstay, the applications of the petitioner for parole and furlough were rejected and in addition his remission was cut. This Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Maqbool Hussain Vs State of Bombay3 ,
Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab4 , Union of India and
Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar5 . and three decisions of this
Court in the case of 1. Anil Lala Saundade Vs State of
Maharashtra6 , 2. Niyaj Ahamad Abdul Jabbar Vs. State of Maharashtra7 . 3. Akash @ Vijay Kumar Khandekar
2 Cri. W.P. No. 2477 of 2015 decided on 24.6.2016 (Coram : V.K. Tahilramani & Mridula Bhatkar, JJ)
3 1953 (Cri. L.J. 1432 : 2010 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 294
4 AIR 1959 SC 375
5 (2001) 3 SCC 414
6 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 433
7 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2509
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 6
3. cri wp 1797-16.doc
Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.8 held that the provisions relating to entitlement or disentitlement of furlough leave do not relate to penal action on the part of the authorities.
Besides, punishment for jail offence by the Jail Superintendent would not even bar the prosecution and punishment in a Court for the same offence because the powers of Jail Superintendent are in the nature of administrative authority for maintenance of discipline and to inflict summary punishment for breach of discipline and those proceedings are not judicial proceedings. It was further held that the contention that on account of the punishment having been imposed under Section 48-A of the Prisons Act, the respondents would not be entitled to deny the furlough leave by taking resort to the provisions of law comprised under Rule 4(10) of the Furlough Rules is devoid of substance. Thus, in view of the facts relating to this case, it cannot be said to be a case of being punished twice on account of overstay.
8 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3831
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 6
3. cri wp 1797-16.doc
rejected as the petitioner had committed an offence when he was earlier released on parole and there was overstay. In this view of the matter, the apprehension of the Authorities that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he would again commit another offence or there would be breach of law and order situation, cannot be faulted. Thus, we find no merit in
the petition. Rule is discharged.
is lodged in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba.
quantified at Rs. 2500/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a prisoner has an absolute right to be released on furlough although such application can be rejected.
,
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Pandurang DarvakarApplied¶33
State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar
Buwaji Sahadeo Hazare Vs. The State of MaharashtraReferred¶46
Buwaji Sahadeo Hazare Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Maqbool Hussain Vs State of BombayReferred¶49
Maqbool Hussain Vs State of Bombay
Thomas Dana v. State of PunjabReferred¶49
Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab
Union of India and Ors. v. Sunil Kumar SarkarReferred¶49
Union of India and Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar
Anil Lala Saundade Vs State of MaharashtraReferred¶53
Anil Lala Saundade Vs State of Maharashtra
Niyaj Ahamad Abdul Jabbar Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶53
Niyaj Ahamad Abdul Jabbar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Akash @ Vijay Kumar Khandekar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.Referred¶53
Akash @ Vijay Kumar Khandekar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Dharmaraj @ Sai Laxman Das
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
