Dismissed

Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Apr 2017WP/1344/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a furlough application. The High Court held that the petitioner, convicted under Sections 392 and 395 of the IPC and having previously overstayed furlough, cannot be granted furlough under Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; furlough application not allowed.

Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1344 OF 2017 (Through Jail)

¶6

Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani Prisoner No.C/3104 Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Ms. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :12^TH APRIL, 2017

¶13

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

¶14

The Petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 17th

¶15

March, 2016. The said application was rejected by the order dated 18th July, 2016. Being aggrieved thereby the Petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 4th January 2017. Hence, this Petition.

¶16

The application of the Petitioner for furlough came to be

¶17

2 Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)

¶18

rejected firstly on the ground that he has been convicted under Sections 392 and 395 of the I.P.C. Thus in view of Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 furlough cannot be granted to the Petitioner. Rule 4 states when prisoners shall not be granted furlough. Rule 4(2) states prisoners convicted of offences under Sections 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code shall not be granted furlough.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 302, 392 and 395 of the I.P.C. She submitted that the Petitioner has undergone the imprisonment for the offences under Sections 392 and 395 of I.P.C. Hence, Rule 4(2) would not come in the way of the Petitioner being granted furlough. As far as this contention is concerned Rule 4(2) speaks of prisoners “convicted” of the offences under Sections 392 to 402 shall not be granted furlough. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 392 and 395 of I.P.C. Hence Rule 4(2) would be attracted even if the Petitioner has undergone the imprisonment for the same. Only if the Petitioner is

¶20

acquitted of the said offences, his application can be considered for

¶21

3 Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)

¶22

grant of furlough. However, such is not the case. Hence, under Rule 4(2) the Petitioner cannot be granted furlough.

¶23

The second ground on which the application of the Petitioner for furlough came to be rejected is that earlier when the Petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2006 he did not report back to the prison in time. Ultimately the petitioner had to be traced and arrested by the Police and brought back to prison. The overstay on the part of the Petitioner was of 144 days. During the period of overstay the Petitioner was involved in four other cases which were either of robbery or dacoity. Hence, it is apprehended that if the Petitioner is released on furlough he will again indulge in criminal activities and the Petitioner may abscond and not report to the prison in time.

¶24

Looking to the past history of the Petitioner it cannot be said that the above apprehension is without any basis. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Hence Rule is discharged.

¶25

Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)

¶26

¶27

Office to communicate this order to the Petitioner who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.

¶28

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani 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

Commissionr, Kendriya Vidyalalya Sangathan and Ors. Vs K. Tiwari and Ors.

Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs Smt. Supriya Dali and Ors.

The Commissioner, Kvs and Anr. Vs Suchitra Dhar and 29 Ors.

Suresh Supdu Kapadnis Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Digambar Gavali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin Dayanand Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.