Allowed

Manoj Parshuram Dhankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Sept 2016WP/2872/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a retrospective amendment to the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, banning furlough for rape convicts does not apply to applicants who filed their requests before the amendment date, relying on the principle of no retrospective effect in criminal law.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute directing authorities to grant furlough to the petitioner and comply with the earlier order dated 10.3.2016.

Manoj Parshuram Dhankar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

jdk 1 12.crwp.2872.16.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2872 OF 2016

¶4

Manoj Parshuram Dhankar ] C / 9982, Presently lodged at ] Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik ].. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ].. Respondent

¶7

Ms. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State

¶8

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶9

DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2016

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:

¶11

1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides.

¶12

2 The case of the petitioner is that he had preferred an application for furlough on 21.5.2013. The said application

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

jdk 2 12.crwp.2872.16.j.doc

¶15

came to be rejected by order dated 3.12.2013. Appeal preferred against the said order came to be dismissed on 14.3.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 1799 of 2014. The said writ petition was allowed and Rule was made absolute by this Court by order dated 10.3.2016.

¶16

3 The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Writ Petition has been allowed, he has not yet been released on furlough. The learned A.P.P. pointed out that the petitioner is convicted under Section 376 of IPC. In view of Notification dated 1.12.2015 amendment was made to Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. By the said amendment, Section 376 of IPC was added to Rule 4(2). Rule 4(2) states the cases when prisoners shall not be granted furlough and 4(2) as it stood amended by Notification dated 1.12.2015, stated that prisoners who are convicted for rape, would not be granted furlough. The learned A.P.P. submitted that in view of Notification dated 1.12.2015 the petitioner is not entitled to be released on furlough. He submitted that when Writ Petition No. 1799 of 2014 was heard, it was not pointed

¶17

2 of 4

¶18

jdk 3 12.crwp.2872.16.j.doc

¶19

out to the Court that the petitioner was convicted under Section 376 of IPC and hence, this Court granted the prayer of the petitioner for furlough.

¶20

4 As stated earlier, the application of the petitioner for furlough is dated 21.5.2013. Amendment to Rule 4(2) came into effect from 1.12.2015. This Court in the decision dated 5.5.2015 in the case of Santosh Namdeo Bhukan Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3325 of 2014 held that for the purpose of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the relevant date would be the date of the application for furlough and not the date of conviction or the date of offence. As the amendment is dated 1.12.2015, the application is prior to that date, hence, amendment cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. It is well settled that in Criminal Law, generally, there is no retrospective effect. As the application of the petitioner was preferred much prior to the amendment, furlough cannot be refused to the petitioner on the basis of this amendment which came into effect on and from 1.12.2015. As the petitioner has already been ordered to be released on furlough by order

¶21

jdk 4 12.crwp.2872.16.j.doc

¶22

dated 10.3.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1799 of 2014, the authorities to comply with that order. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶23

5 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.

¶24

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]

¶25

kandarkar

¶26

4 of 4

Manoj Parshuram Dhankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Parshuram Dhankar 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

Bhauji Alias Bhavsingh Tulshiram Barde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharmaraj @ Sai Laxman Das through His Mother Jaylaxmi Laxman Das Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alfaraz Istekar Khan @ Tandan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uday Narayan Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh Krishna Bhoir through His Wife Ranjana Ramesh Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Kallappa Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra