Allowed

Balaji Sayyanna Bakwad, C-4767 v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2016WP/504/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr.WP 504/16 regarding eligibility for amended Rule 16 of Prison Rules 1959 for extended furlough benefits. Court directs consideration of premature release granting 14 days extended furlough prior to April 23, 2012.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the petitioner's case be considered for premature release and remission be granted in terms of amended Rule 16 of the rules with benefit of 14 days extended period of furlough prior to 2

Balaji Sayyanna Bakwad, C-4767 Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Cr.WP 504/16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.504/2016

¶5

Balaji Sayyana Bakwad (C-4767),
age 42 yrs., at present in
Open Prison, Paithan Dist.Aurangabad.
Through Jail.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

2] The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madhya Vibhag, Aurangabad (Harsul), Aurangabad.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Application received through jail.
Shri S.J. Salgare, APP for respondents.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 18.04.2016

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Borde, J.)

¶16

1] Heard learned APP for the respondents.

¶17

2]Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard

¶18

finally at the admission stage.

¶19

3] Petitioner, a convict, is undergoing sentence of
life imprisonment and is presently lodged at Open Central

¶20

Prison, Paithan since last several years. Petitioner

¶21

Cr.WP 504/16

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

claims that he has already completed more than 12 years'
imprisonment and that the respondent-authorities have not
considered him eligible for the benefit of amended Rule
16 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959,
which has been brought on the Rule book from 23rd April,
2012. Petitioner claims that in accordance with Rule 16

¶24

of the Rules, he is entitled to be granted benefit of 14
days extended period of furlough while considering his
claim of remission of sentence.

¶25

4] The issue raised in the petition is no more res

¶26

integra in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish , reported in 2010 AIR (SC) 1690 as well as decision of Division Bench of this Court at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition no.1485/2013 decided on 24th December, 2013. The

¶27

Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish (supra) in paragraph no.43 of the judgment has observed thus :

¶28

“The State has to exercise its power of
remission also keeping in view any such benefit
to be construed liberally in favour of a convict
which may depend upon case to case and for that
purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a
policy which, in the instant case, was in favour
of the respondent. In case a liberal policy

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

prevails on the date of consideration of the
case of a lifer for premature release, he should
be given benefit thereof.” {emphasis supplied).

¶31

 In view of judgment of the Apex Court, the State

¶32

has to exercise its power of remission by construing it
liberally in favour of the convict. If liberal policy
prevails on the date of consideration of the life convict
for premature release, he should be given benefit
thereof.

¶33

5] For the reasons recorded above, we direct that

¶34

case of the petitioner be considered for premature

¶35

release. Benefit of amended Rule 16 of the rules shall be

¶36

given in case of extended period of furlough of 14 days
granted prior to 23rd April, 2012. We, therefore, direct
that while considering the claim of petitioner for grant
of premature release, remission will have to be granted

¶37

in terms of the directions specified as above.

¶38

6] Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶39

(K.L. WADANE, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.) ndk/ cr1841622.doc

Balaji Sayyanna Bakwad, C-4767 v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Sayyanna Bakwad, C-4767 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

Kailas Shankar Navekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devidas S/O Lokdoji Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Sayyad Haroon S/O Sayyad Rauf Vs Sadiq S/O Babamiya Mulani Inamdar and Other

Mohd. Majlum Dost Miyan Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kashiram @ Pintaya Rama Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bala Vastad Digambar Shitole Vs the State of Maharashtra