Dismissed

Datta Samnath Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Jan 2017WP/4333/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay examined a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's furlough application. The court upheld the rejection based on the petitioner's conviction under Section 376 of the IPC and related prison rules, distinguishing the case from another convict released on furlough who was not convicted under such provisions. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Rule discharged.

Datta Samnath Jadhav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

jdk 1 1.crwp.4333.16.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4333 OF 2016

¶3

Datta Somnath Jadhav ] C-9787, Nasik Road Central Prison, ] Nasik ].. Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ].. Respondent

¶6

Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. H.J.Dedia A.P.P. for State

¶7

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶8

DATED : JANUARY 06, 2017

¶9

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

¶10

1 Heard both sides.

¶11

2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough.

¶12

The said application came to be rejected by order dated 5.8.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed, hence, this petition.

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

jdk 2 1.crwp.4333.16.j.doc

¶15

3 The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected mainly on the ground that he has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC. The case of the petitioner is that he has been convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Chlidren from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to “as POCSO Act”) hence, his application for furlough was rejected. The petitioner has stated that another accused Ramesh Gangaram Sonkamble has also been convicted under POCSO Act, however, he has been released on furlough, hence, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on furlough. As far as this contention is concerned, it is seen that in addition to being cnvicted under POCSO the petitioner has also been convicted under Section 376 of IPC. Notification dated 1.12.2015 has amended Rule 4 of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 earlier read as under:

¶16

“ 4. When prisoners shall not be granted furlough,-

¶17

The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough:-

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

jdk 3 1.crwp.4333.16.j.doc

¶20

(1) …... (2) Prisoners convicted of offences under

¶21

sections 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the IPC;”

¶22

By Notification dated 1.12.2015 Sections 376 and 377 of IPC have been added to Sub-Clause (2) of Rule 2.

¶23

4 This Court in the decision dated 28.4.2016 in the case of Sharad Devram Shelke Vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in Mh.L.J. 206(4) 228, was considering the vires of Notification dated 23.2.2012, whereby Rule 4(13) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 was amended and the offence of kidnapping was also added. While upholding the vires of the Notification in paragraph 33 of the said decision, it is observed that by Notification dated 1.12.2015 Rule 4 was further amended to include the offence of rape. This Court further observed that "in our opinion, the same reasoning would apply in relation to Notification dated 1.12.2015 as would apply in the case of Notification dated 23.2.2012 whereby Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 was amended.

¶24

3 of 4

¶25

jdk 4 1.crwp.4333.16.j.doc

¶26

5 As the petitioner has also been convicted for the offence of rape, we are not inclined to interfere, hence, Rule is discharged. Petition is dismissed.

¶27

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶28

kandarkar

¶29

4 of 4

Datta Samnath Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datta Samnath Jadhav 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

Pundlik Basu Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imtiyaz Noor Mohammed Hundekari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shakir Ahmed Abdul Hamid Khan @ Kalu Vs the Superintendent of Prisons and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shipat Shivaram Gole and Ors.

Rahim Munawar Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhalchandra Baban Bhopi Vs the State of Maharashtra