Allowed

Mohd. Sharif Badshah Shamin Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 May 2016WP/393/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition seeking furlough leave. The Court held that the petitioner's previous strict compliance with parole/furlough conditions negates the prison's apprehension of abscondance as a ground to deny his request for current release.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by Superintendents of Jail and Additional Director General of Prisons were quashed and set aside. Petitioner released on furlough leave.

Mohd. Sharif Badshah Shamin Khan Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

Cr.WP 393/16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.393/2016

¶6

Mohammad Sharif Shamim Khan,
age 31 yrs., occu.at present in jail
r/o presently in Nashik Road
Central Jail, Nashik.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

1] The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶10

2] Additional Chief Director and Jail Superintendent, Maharashtra State, Pune-1, having office at 2^nd Floor, Old Central Building, Pune.

¶11

3] The Inspector General (Prison), Central Division, Aurangabad (Maharashtra).

¶12

...Respondents...

¶13

 .....

¶14

Shri A.K. Gawali, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.P. Deshmukh, APP for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶15

 .....

¶16

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 02.05.2016

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Borde, J.) :

¶18

Cr.WP 393/16

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.

¶21

Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of

¶22

learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up
for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶23

2]The petitioner is objecting to the order passed
by the jail authorities refusing him furlough leave

¶24

requested by him, which order has been confirmed by the
DIG Prison, Maharashtra State, Pune, on 25.1.2016.

¶25

3]The petitioner is a life convict and is

¶26

undergoing sentence of imprisonment at Nashik jail. The

¶27

petitioner was arrested on 19.4.2016 and is in prison

¶28

since the date of his arrest. He has completed almost 10
years of actual period of imprisonment. The petitioner

¶29

has been refused the facility of furlough leave on the

¶30

ground that on 24.3.2012, h was released on parole for a
period of 30 days, however, he reported late by 254 days.

¶31

The petitioner was required to be brought back to jail

¶32

with the aid of Police authorities. The petitioner has

¶33

been penalized by directing deduction of 254 days from

¶34

the remissions admissible to him. After the petitioner

¶35

was brought to the prison, his request for release on

¶36

furlough was considered favourably by the jail

¶37

Cr.WP 393/16

¶38

- 3 -

¶39

authorities on 26.11.2014 and after completion of the
period of furlough leave, he reported on his own accord
within the prescribed period at jail on 25.12.2014.

¶40

4]Since even after the alleged over-stay of the
petitioner in the year 2012, he was released on furlough
and has reported back within the prescribed period,

¶41

clears the apprehension expressed by the prison
authorities as regards abscondance of the petitioner
after completion of the furlough leave. It must be taken
note of that the petitioner was granted furlough leave on
three occasions during his tenure of imprisonment and he
has reported within the prescribed period on all the
three occasions. Since the apprehension expressed by the

¶42

jail authorities is found to be unsubstantiated, we do
not find any reason to reject the request made by the
petitioner for grant of furlough leave. It shall be
borne in mind that to be released on furlough is the
right of the convict and that there are no adverse
circumstances for denying the just request made by the
petitioner.

¶43

5]The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be
allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The orders

¶44

Cr.WP 393/16

¶45

impugned in the petition, passed by the Superintendent of
Jail and the Additional Director General of Prisons,
Pune, are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be
released on furlough leave in accordance with the
relevant rules by imposing appropriate permissible
conditions. The writ petition is allowed to the extent
specified above. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶46

ndk/ cr251625.doc

Mohd. Sharif Badshah Shamin Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sharif Badshah Shamin Khan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sayed Azahar Sayed Kamroddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devanand Bhaurao Sanap (C-4196) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetan Sahebrao Ahire. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other.

Sangita D/O Dhondiba Ingole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Khandesh College Education Society Jalgaon through Its President and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another