This judgment grants directions to prison authorities to credit a 14-day furlough period granted before a 2012 rule amendment when computing remission of sentence, relying on a prior Division Bench pronouncement.
Directions to grant consideration for premature release by crediting the furlough period anterior to 23.4.2012.
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.
{1}
cr wp 245.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.245 OF 2016
Hanumant S/o Bhimrao Kawade Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Mrs. Vaishali Chaudhari advocate appointed for the petitioner Mr.S.J. Salgare, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondents
_______________ CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ
Dated : 13th APRIL, 2016.
PER COURT :-
1 The only prayer that needs to be considered is in respect of issuance of directions to the respondent – authorities to consider computation of period in respect 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 Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Amendment Rules, 1959.
2 By virtue of amendment incorporated in Rule 16, it is prescribed that the furlough period shall be counted as remission of sentence. The amendment is enforced since 23.4.2012. The prison authorities have refused to grant the benefit of the
{2} cr wp 245.16.odt
amendment in respect of grant of furlough for a period anterior to the enforcement of amended provisions of the Rules while computing the period in respect of remission of sentence of the petitioner.
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 24.1.2013 issued directions to the respondentauthorities that the petitioner therein be considered for grant of premature release and the 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 for premature release on or after 23.4.2012, the benefit of amended Rule 16 of the said Rules will have to be given even in case of the extended period of furlough of 14 days granted prior to 23.4.2012.
4 In view of the judgment, as cited above, the identical relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant petition also deserves to be granted and it is accordingly being granted.
{3} cr wp 245.16.odt
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.
6 Mrs. Vaishali Choudhari, learned counsel appointed to assist the Court shall be paid legal remuneration of Rs.5,000/-.
(K.L. WADANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)
vbd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to credit for an extended period of 14 days furlough granted prior to the enforcement of the amended Rule 16 for the purpose of remission of sentence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagannath Raghunath Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra & othersRelied on¶3
Jagannath Raghunath Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 1485 of 2013
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hanumant S/o Bhimrao Kawade
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
K.L. WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
