Allowed

Bhau Vitthal Jagdale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC31 Mar 2016WP/187/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad directed the State of Maharashtra and jail authorities to consider the petitioner's furlough antecedent to 23.4.2012 under amended Rule 16 for remission of sentence. The court ensured uniform implementation of prior Bombay Bench directions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted benefits under amended Rule 16 for the period anterior to 23.4.2012; Respondents directed to issue uniform instructions to all jail authorities.

Bhau Vitthal Jagdale Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Cr.WP 187/16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.187/2016

¶6

Bhau Vitthal Jagdale (C-4643).
...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

...Respondent...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Application received through jail.
Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondent.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &

¶14

 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 31.03.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]The only prayer that needs to be considered is in

¶17

respect of issuance of directions to the respondent -
authorities to consider computation of period in respect

¶18

of availment of furlough granted to the petitioner for an
extended period of 14 days referable to the period
anterior to the date of enforcement of the amendment to

¶19

Cr.WP 187/16

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and
Parole) Amendment Rules, 1959.

¶22

2]By virtue of amendment incorporated in Rule 16, it

¶23

is prescribed that the furlough period shall be counted
as remission of sentence. The amendment is enforced

¶24

since 23.4.2012. The prison authorities have refused to

¶25

grant the benefit of the amendment in respect of grant of
furlough for a period anterior to the enforcement of
amended provisions of the Rules while computing the

¶26

period in respect of remission of sentence of the
petitioner.

¶27

3] The Division Bench of this Court at Bombay while dealing with Writ Petition No.1485/2013 in the matter of Jagannath Raghunath Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra & others decided on 24.1.22013 issued directions to the respondent authorities that the petitioner therein be

¶28

considered for grant of premature release and the

¶29

remission shall have to be granted in terms of the
judgment. It is observed in paragraph no.13 of the said
judgment that when a case of life convict is considered

¶30

for premature release on or after 23.4.2012, the benefit

¶31

of amended Rule 16 of the said Rules will have to be

¶32

Cr.WP 187/16

¶33

- 3 -

¶34

given even in case of the extended period of furlough of
14 days granted prior to 23.4.2012.

¶35

4]In view of the judgment, as cited above, the

¶36

identical relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant
petition also deserves to be granted and it is
accordingly being granted.

¶37

5]The petitioner shall be granted similar benefits and
be considered for premature release on considering his
claim for remission in sentence in terms of the amended
Rule 16 and the benefit shall be given in respect of the
period anterior to 23.4.2012 also.

¶38

6]It is noticed that in spite of the directions issued
by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition decided at
Bombay, the State authorities are not uniformly observing
the directives in case of all the prisoners and as such
almost every prisoner is required to approach this Court
for securing the benefits.

¶39

7]The respondents including the Inspector General of
Prisons of the State of Maharashtra are directed to take
note of the aforesaid judgment delivered at Bombay and
issue appropriate directions to the jail authorities in
the State so that each individual prisoner entitled to

¶40

Cr.WP 187/16

¶41

- 4 -

¶42

claim benefits shall not be required to approach this
Court.

¶43

8]Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶44

 (K.L. WADANE, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)

¶45

ndk/ cr313167.doc

Bhau Vitthal Jagdale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhau Vitthal Jagdale 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Jameel Shaikh Hadi. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harish Baburao Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Ramchandra Bavbande. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Ibrahim Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kadar Lalkha Tadvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Bapu Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra