Disposed

Vasant Tipaji Jadhav (C-7480) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Feb 2017WP/1672/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay (Benches at Aurangabad) disposed of a prayer by a life convict seeking release on furlough without surety. The Court held that the applicant cannot claim a right to furlough and allowed liberty to file a fresh application with surety.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file fresh application for furlough within two weeks.

Vasant Tipaji Jadhav (C-7480) Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1672.2016 Cri.WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1672 OF 2016

¶5

Vasant Tipaji Jadhav
(C-7480) (Convict)
Central Prison, Aurangabad

¶6

 PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary Home Department (Prison), Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶9

2. The State of Maharashtra Through D.I.G. (Prisons), Aurangabad.

¶10

3. Superintendent, Central Jail, Aurangabad (Harsool) Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

Mr.V.N.Shelke [Appointed] Advocate for the
petitioner

¶13

Ms.Preeti V. Diggikar, APP for the Respondent
/State

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶16

 K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.

¶17

Reserved on : 01.02.2017
 Pronounced on : 03.02.2017

¶18

1672.2016 Cri.WP.odt

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

1.This Petition, under Article 226 of

¶22

the Constitution of India, seeks direction to
release the petitioner on furlough leave on
furnishing P.R.bond.

¶23

2.The learned counsel appearing for

¶24

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
undergoing imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and at present he is in Aurangabad
Central Prison, Aurangabad. He further
submits that the Divisional Commissioner,

¶25

Aurangabad, has granted parole leave to the

¶26

present petitioner by his order dated
16.12.2015. Thereafter, respondent no.3

¶27

issued a letter on 10.10.2016 sent by the

¶28

Deputy I.G. [Prison], Aurangabad, regarding
furnishing fresh surety by the petitioner

¶29

seeking furlough leave. It is submitted that
respondent no.2 rejected the prayer of the

¶30

1672.2016 Cri.WP.odt

¶31

¶32

petitioner to release him on furlough leave on furnishing personal security bond. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner died on 08.08.2015 and therefore he wanted to visit his native place. He further submits that he has two daughters and there is no any other family member to look after them. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in the case of Rameshwar Shivram Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashra in Writ Petition No.591 of 2016 decided on 23.06.2016 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad, submits that this Court may issue directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave on furnishing personal bond.

¶33

3.Pursuant to the notices issued to

¶34

the respondents, respondents have filed
affidavit-in-reply. It is stated in the said
affidavit-in-reply that the Dy. Inspector

¶35

1672.2016 Cri.WP.odt

¶36

¶37

GeneralofPrison,CentralRegion,
Aurangabad, by letter dated 18.11.2016
rejected the application of the petitioner
for granting him furlough leave on personal
surety bond as per The Prison Manual, 1979
Chapter No.37 Furlough and Parole to
Prisoners Rule No.06, which says that, the
furlough not to be granted without surety.

¶38

4.The learned APP appearing for the
respondent – State submits that as per the
relevant provision in the Prison Manual, 1979

¶39

Chapter No.37, Furlough and Parole to
Prisoners Rule No.6 provided that the
furlough not to be granted without surety.

¶40

Therefore, keeping in view the relevant
rules, the prayer of the petitioner to

¶41

release him on furlough on executing personal

¶42

security bond is rightly rejected by the
respondents, and therefore, this Court may
not entertain the prayer of the petitioner to

¶43

1672.2016 Cri.WP.odt

¶44

¶45

release him on furlough leave on furnishing
personal bond.

¶46

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the respondent – State. With their able assistance, carefully perused the pleadings in the Petition and annexures thereto, and also the reply filed by the respondents and other documents placed on record. Whenever there is prayer by the convict undergoing imprisonment of life to release him on furlough or parole, as the case may be, the respondent authorities are bound to adhere to the relevant Rules. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court [Coram: Smt.V.K.Tahilramani & Smt.Anuja Prabhudessai, JJ.] in the case of Santosh Namdeo Bhukan Vs. State of Maharashtra¹ had occasion to consider the scope, ambit and purport of Section 48-A of

¶47

1 2016 [4] Mh.L.J. [Cri.] 83

¶48

¶49

1672.2016 Cri.WP.odt

¶50

the Prisons Act (9 of 1894 as applicable in
State of Maharashtra) and Rule 4 of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules,
1959. In para 25 of the said Judgment, it is
held thus:

¶51

25. If the rules provide for furlough leave and equally contain the provisions enabling imposition of conditions for being released on furlough leave, then, the prisoner cannot claim it to be a matter of right. A prisoner cannot urge that despite the provisions in the rules and contrary thereto, his case for furlough must be considered and granted. His case can be considered provided it falls within four corners of the rules. The petitioner before us has understood this position and, therefore, has raised a challenge to the validity of notification dated 23-2-2012 and

¶52

more particularly sub-rule (13) of rule 4 which covers the case of the petitioner. However, we find that

¶53

1672.2016 Cri.WP.odt

¶54

¶55

his challenge is not well founded.

¶56

6.As it is apparent from the material

¶57

placed on record that prayer of the
petitioner to release him on furlough leave
has been rejected on the ground that he is
not ready to furnish surety.

¶58

inclined to quash and set aside the impugned
order, however, we grant liberty to the
petitioner to file application afresh within

¶59

two weeks from today. In case such
application for releasing the petitioner on
furlough leave is filed within two weeks from
today, the respondent authorities to consider
the same in accordance with law / rules /
procedure, as expeditiously as possible,
however, within four weeks from filing such
application. With the above observations, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶60

1672.2016 Cri.WP.odt

¶61

¶62

8.We make it clear that the
observations made hereinbefore are confined
to the present Petition and the authority
shall not rely upon the said reasons while
considering the prayer of the petitioner
afresh to release him on furlough or parole
leave as the case may be.

¶63

 [K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶64

DDC

Vasant Tipaji Jadhav (C-7480) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant Tipaji Jadhav (C-7480) 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

Sopan Satappa Kore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Zumbar S/O Goroba Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arjumand Bano D/O Akbar Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji Nagorao Shinde (C-9663) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shafriee W/O Babarali Irani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrakalabai Badrinath Hake and Others Vs Central Bank of India through Senior Branch Manager S D Joshi and Another