Partly allowed

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

Bombay HC26 Apr 2016WP/506/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed that the petitioner's case be considered for premature release. The court held that while evaluating the claim, the authorities must grant remission benefits including the extended furlough period under amended Rule 16 existing prior to April 23, 2012.

What did the court decide?

Case remitted for consideration for premature release; directives to grant remission benefit of amended Rule 16.

Devanand Bhaurao Sanap (C-4196) Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Cr.WP 506/16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.506/2016

¶5

Devanand Bhaurao Sanap (C-4196),
age 68 yrs., at present in
Open Prison, Paithan Dist.Aurangabad.
Through Jail.

¶6

...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

...Respondent...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Application received through jail.
Shri D.R. Kale, APP for respondent.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &

¶14

 P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 26.04.2016

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Borde, J.)

¶17

1] Heard learned APP for the respondent - State.

¶18

2]Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally at the admission stage.

¶19

3] Petitioner, a convict, is undergoing sentence of

¶20

life imprisonment and is presently lodged at Open Central

¶21

Prison, Paithan since last several years. Petitioner

¶22

claims that he has already completed more than 17 years'

¶23

imprisonment and that the respondent-authorities have not

¶24

Cr.WP 506/16

¶25

- 2 -

¶26

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,

¶27

2012. Petitioner claims that in accordance with Rule 16
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.

¶28

4] The issue raised in the petition is no more res integra in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish ,

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

- 3 -

¶33

 In view of judgment of the Apex Court, the State

¶34

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.

¶35

5] For the reasons recorded above, we direct that
case of the petitioner be considered for premature
release. Benefit of amended Rule 16 of the rules shall be
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
in terms of the directions specified as above.

¶36

6] Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶37

 (P.R. BORA, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)

¶38

ndk/ cr2641638.doc

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devanand Bhaurao Sanap (C-4196) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anant S/O Manohar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Azaroddin Badorddin Kazi. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Shaikh Amin Shaikh Bapu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

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

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