The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an earlier furlough application. The court held that based on the Maharashtra Prison Manual, an ungranted furlough does not lapse and carried-forward eligibility does not apply, especially after the petitioner was granted 28 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
jdk 1 4.crwp.4062.15.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4062 OF 2015
Sachin @ Surya Vitthal Bhujbal ] Age 38 years, presently lodged as ] C-16703, Yerawada Central Prison, ] Pune - 411006 ].. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ] At the instance of : ] ] 1) Additional Director General and ] Inspector General of Prison, ] Maharashtra State, Pune-411001 ] ] 2) Deputy Inspector General of Prison ] Western Region, Pune-411006 ] ] 3) Deputy Commissioner of Police, ] Pune City, Pune-1 ] ] 4) Senior Police Inspector ] Wanorie Police Station, Pune city, ] Pune ] ] 5) Additional Superintendent of ] Police Baramati Region, Dist. Pune ] ] 6) Sub-Divisional Officer, ] Daund Sub Division, Dist. Pune ] ] 7) Police Inspector, ] Shikapur Police Station, Tal.Shirur ] Dist. Pune. ] ] 8) Deputy Superintendent of Police ] (Home) Ahmednagar ] ]
1 of 3
jdk 2 4.crwp.4062.15.j.doc
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. H.J.Dedia A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.]
1 Heard both sides.
2 The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough on 27.8.2013. The said application was rejected by order dated 10.2.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 15.7.2015, hence, this petition.
3 The jail record of the petitioner shows that thereafter the petitioner has preferred an application for furlough which was granted and he was released on furlough on 2.12.2016 for a period of 28 days. The petitioner enjoyed the period of
jdk 3 4.crwp.4062.15.j.doc
furlough and reported back to the prison on 31.12.2016.
4 As far as the earlier application for furlough is concerned i.e. application dated 27.8.2013, Note (3) of Rule 2 in Chapter XXXVII of the Maharashtra Prison Manual, 1979, which deals with furlough and parole, states that “if at any time, a prisoner who could have been granted furlough is either not granted or is refused the same, the period for which he could have been granted furlough, shall not be carried forward but shall lapse”.
5 In view of the above Rule, it is clear that the period of furlough which was being sought in the year 2013 cannot be carried forward to this year. In any event, it is seen that the petitioner thereafter has been released on furlough not for a period of 14 days but for a period of 28 days. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Rule is discharged. Petition is dismissed.
[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
kandarkar
3 of 3
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin @ Surya Vitthal Bhujbal
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
