Quashed

Jilani Mohiddin Pathan (C-8079) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Sept 2016WP/912/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A high court convicted prisoner contested the rejection of his furlough application due to prior overstays. The court quashed the order, directing authorities to reconsider the prayer based on justifiable reasons for the delay. The decision mandates reconsideration within two weeks. This judgment addresses prisoners' rights to furlough despite past infractions if valid reasons exist.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejected the furlough application is quashed. The respondent is directed to reconsider the prayer within two weeks.

Jilani Mohiddin Pathan (C-8079) Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

912.16WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 912 OF 2016

¶5

Jilani Mohiddin Pathan
(Convict No.C-8079)
Age : 69 years, Occ : Nil,
R/o Central Prison, Aurangabad.. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Inspector General [Prison], Central Division, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad

¶8

2. The Police Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS

¶9

…
Mr. Gajendra Jain, Advocate (Appointed) for
the Petitioner
Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &

¶11

 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶12

 DATE: 21st September, 2016

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per S.S.Shinde, J.)

¶14

Rule.Rulemadereturnable

¶15

forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of

¶16

the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.

¶17

912.16WP.odt

¶18

¶19

2.This Petition is filed taking
exception to the order dated 19th May, 2016
passed by Respondent No.1.

¶20

3.The petitioner is convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. He is undergoing sentence
in Aurangabad Central Prison. It is the
contention of the petitioner that he applied
for furlough by filing an application,
however, his application has been rejected by
Respondent No.1 on the ground that in the
year 2008 when the petitioner was released on
furlough, he overstayed for 42 days, in the
year 2014, when he was released on parole, he
overstayed for one day and thereafter in the
year 2015, when he was released on furlough,
he overstayed for 46 days, and therefore, in
view of Rules 4(6) and 4(10) of the Furlough
and Parole to Prisoners contained in Chapter
XXXVII of the Maharashtra Prison Manual,
1979, his application for furlough cannot be
considered.

¶21

4.The learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner invites our attention to para
No.5 of the Petition, and submits that

¶22

912.16WP.odt

¶23

¶24

when the petitioner was released, on account
of search of his missing son, he could not
report the jail authorities within time. It
is submitted that this Court in the case of
Sarfuddin Aminuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra1
while interpreting Rule 4 (10) of the said
Rules held that if the justifiable reasons
for surrendering late are placed on record in
that case, the Competent Authority was not
right in rejecting application of the
petitioner therein, on the ground that Rule 4
(10) of the said Rules is embargo for not
entertaining the prayer for release on
furlough leave. Therefore, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the Petition may be allowed.

¶25

5.The learned APP appearing for the
respondent - State submits that in view of
the provisions of the said Rules, the
Authorityhasrightlyrejectedthe
application praying for grant of furlough
leave, and therefore, this Court may not
interfere in the impugned order.

¶26

6We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing

¶27

2004 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 136

¶28

912.16WP.odt

¶29

¶30

for the petitioner, and the learned APP
appearing for the Respondent – State. With
their able assistance, perused the pleadings
in the Petition, grounds taken therein,
annexure thereto and the relevant rules, and
we are of the opinion that the petitioner has
stated justifiable reasons for his overstay

¶31

on earlier occasions, and therefore, the
respondent authorities ought to have
considered his application for furlough
leave.

¶32

7.Therefore, in our opinion, ends of
justice would be met, if the impugned Order
is quashed and set aside, and the Respondent
authority is directed to re-consider the
prayer of the petitioner afresh keeping in
view the peculiar facts of the case that the
petitioner has placed on record justifiable
reasons for his overstay on earlier
occasions, over and above the period of
furlough/parole sanctioned by the concerned
authority.

¶33

8.In that view of the matter, the
impugned order is set aside. The Respondent
No.1 is directed to consider the prayer of
the petitioner afresh uninfluenced by the

¶34

912.16WP.odt

¶35

¶36

fact that the petitioner overstayed on
earlier occasions. Such decision should be
taken as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within two weeks from receiving
the copy of this order. It may be open for
therespondentauthoritiestotake
appropriate action/decision in respect of
overstaying by the petitioner in the years
2008, 2014 and 2015, if already action is not
taken in accordance with law/procedure/rules.

¶37

9.Rule made absolute to the above
extent. The petition stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶38

10.The parties shall act upon
authenticated copy of this order.

¶39

11.Since, Mr. Gajendra Jain, the
learned counsel is appointed as Amicus Curie
to prosecute the cause of the petitioner, his
fees be paid as per the schedule of fees
maintained by the High Court Legal Services
Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶40

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶41

sga/

Jilani Mohiddin Pathan (C-8079) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jilani Mohiddin Pathan (C-8079) 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

Suresh S/O Govindrao Kulkarni Vs Trhe State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Shaikh Iftekhar S/O Abdul Rauf and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Rafique R/O Shaikh Shabbir Vs the Stae of Maharashtra

Azadsinh @ Shambhuraj S/O. Mohanrao Khalate and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganpat S/O Shamrao Lokare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr Sandeep S/O Manchakrao Malve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.