Dismissed

Mahadeo @ Mahadu Narayan Kale (C-8251) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Aug 2017WP/784/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A convict undergoing life imprisonment filed a writ petition seeking furlough leave. The petitioner had a history of overstaying previous parole periods, leading to a criminal case and deletion from the remission register. The High Court refused the petition, holding that the adverse police report and the petitioner's past conduct justified rejection and that the petitioner does not have a right t

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no furlough leave granted. Petitioner may apply in future.

Mahadeo @ Mahadu Narayan Kale (C-8251) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.784 OF 2017

¶5

Mahadev @ Mahadu Narayan Kale,
Age: Major, Occ. Convict No.C/8251
R/o. At Nashik Road Central Prison,
Nashik. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

2. The Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.

¶9

3. The Deputy Inspector General [Prison] Central Prison, Harsool, Aurangabad.

¶10

4. The Maharashtra Prison Department, Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prison & Correctional Services, Pune-1.

¶11

 RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mrs.Almas Abdul Quadar, Advocate for the
petitioner
Ms.S.S.Raut, APP for the Respondent/State

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶16

 S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶17

Reserved on : 26.07.2017
 Pronounced on : 02.08.2017

¶18

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

1. Heard.

¶22

2.Rule.Rulemadereturnable

¶23

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶24

3.It is the case of the petitioner
that the petitioner is a convict; he is
undergoing life imprisonment at Nashik Road
Central Prison, Nashik. The Sessions Court
has convicted the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323 and
504 of the Indian Penal Code on 23rd April,
2010. Since then the petitioner is in prison
at Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.

¶25

4.It is further the case of the
petitionerthatduringperiodof

¶26

imprisonment, the petitioner has availed of
parole only, and he never applied for
furlough leave. For the first time, the
petitioner applied for the furlough leave,

¶27

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶28

¶29

however, application was rejected by order
dated 16th November, 2016, by the respondent
no.2. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority
i.e. respondent no.4, dismissed his appeal by
order dated 31.01.2017, on three grounds viz.
(1) adverse police report received from
Manwat Police Station, the Police Inspector
has not recommended furlough leave to the
petitioner, (2) unsatisfactory conduct, and
(3) on two occasions, when the petitioner was
on parole leave, he failed to report the jail
authorities within time.

¶30

5.It is further the case of the

¶31

petitioner that at the time of applying for
furlough leave, the petitioner promised not
to repeat such mistakes like observed in the
impugned order in future. The petitioner is
ready to abide by the terms and conditions as
would be imposed by the respondents-
authorities in case of his release on
furlough.

¶32

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶33

¶34

6.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

petitioner submits that the orders passed by
respondent nos.3 and 4 are not legally
sustainable, and same deserves to be quashed
and set aside. The petitioner is entitled for
furlough leave as a matter of right. When the
petitioner was released on parole on earlier

¶36

occasion, he reported back to jail
authorities after 43 days from the date of
expiry of period for which he was released on
parole. However, he was punished by the
authorities by deducting 129 days from the
remission available to the petitioner.

¶37

Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the Petition may
be allowed.

¶38

7.On the other hand, the learned APP

¶39

appearing for the respondent – State, relying
upon the affidavit-in-reply, made following
submissions:

¶40

8.Initially, the petitioner was

¶41

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶42

¶43

released on parole on 2nd August, 2011, for a
period of 30 days. The petitioner overstayed
for 43 days before surrendering himself. The
disciplinary action under the Prisons Act was
taken against him and his remission period of
129 was curtailed from the total remission
earned. Further again on 3rd December, 2012,

¶44

he was released on parole for 30 days and
overstayed for 570 days. Subsequently, he was
arrested by the police and handed over to the

¶45

prison authorities on 27th July, 2014. A
criminal case came to be registered against
the petitioner vide Crime No.85/2014 under

¶46

Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code at
Manwat Police Station and further his name

¶47

has been permanently deleted from the
remission register due to violation of the

¶48

prison Rules and Regulations, as per
Government Resolution dated 2nd August, 2011.
It is submitted that the Police Inspector,
Manwat Police Station had forwarded adverse

¶49

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶50

¶51

police report vide letter bearing O.W.NO.
1390/4810 dated 29th August, 2016, regarding
furlough leave of the petitioner. The Police
Inspector, Manwat Police Station had not
recommended the leave of the petitioner on
the following grounds:

¶52

[a]That there is possibility of breach
of public peace if he is released on
leave.

¶53

[b]That there is threat to the life of
the relatives of the informant and
witnesses, who have deposed against
him during the trial.

¶54

[c]The guarantor Shri Vishnu Narayan
Kale appears to be incapable to take
control of the prisoner during his
leave period.

¶55

[d]There are possibilities that the
prisoner will not surrender before

¶56

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶57

¶58

the prison authorities on completion
of leave as previously when he was
released on parole leave he did not
surrender on time.

¶59

9.It is further submitted that the

¶60

Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central
Region, Aurangabad, vide order No.161 dated
4th January, 2017, had rejected the furlough
leave application of the petitioner under
the Prisons [Mumbai Furlough and Parole]

¶61

Rules, 1959 [for short ‘Rules, 1959], Rule 4
[4], 4 [6] and 4 [10] on the adverse grounds
as mentioned in the police report.
Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an
appeal on 28th November, 2016, against the
said order of the Deputy Inspector General of

¶62

Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad, before
the Additional Director General of Police and

¶63

Inspector General [Prisons], Pune-1. The
Appellate Authority, on considering the
entire facts of the case, has rejected the

¶64

¶65

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶66

appeal on the similar grounds as mentioned
above, vide its order No.1005 dated 31st
January, 2017. Hence, the petitioner has
filed the present Writ Petition on 17th March,
2017 before this Court. Therefore, the
learned APP submits that the Petition may be
dismissed.

¶67

10.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, we have perused the grounds taken
in the Petition, annexures thereto, reply
filed by the respondents, and also the Rules,
1959, and also the reasons assigned by the
respondent no.3 in the impugned order. Upon
careful perusal of the reasons assigned in

¶68

the impugned order, it appears that, the
police report received from the Police
Inspector, Manwat Police Station, is adverse,
and the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani

¶69

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶70

¶71

has not recommended the case of the
petitioner to release him on furlough. Upon
careful perusal of the reply filed by the
respondents, it appears that, the petitioner
was released on parole in the past, and he
did not report to the jail authorities within
the period for which he was released on

¶72

parole. It appears that, in the year 2012,
when the petitioner was released on parole,
he did not report back after availing of
parole within time. He overstayed more than
570 days. Therefore, the offence was

¶73

registered against him under Section 224 of
the IPC. Thereafter, he was arrested and was
brought back to the jail to undergo remaining
sentence. It appears that his name is also

¶74

struck down from the convicts, who are
entitled for the remission.

¶75

11.In that view of the matter, in our

¶76

opinion, the reasons assigned in the impugned
order are keeping in view the past record of

¶77

784.2017 Cri.WP.odt

¶78

¶79

the petitioner, and also the relevant Rules.
Therefore, we are not inclined to exercise
discretion in favour of the petitioner. For
the reasons aforesaid, the Petition stands
rejected. Rule stands discharged. We make it
clear that rejection of this Petition may not

¶80

be construed as an impediment to the
petitioner to apply in future for furlough or
parole as the case may be.

¶81

12.Since Mrs.Almas Abdul Qadar, the

¶82

learned counsel is appointed to prosecute the
cause of the petitioner, she would be
entitled for the fees, as per the schedule of

¶83

fees maintained by the High Court Legal
Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶84

DDC

Mahadeo @ Mahadu Narayan Kale (C-8251) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeo @ Mahadu Narayan Kale (C-8251) 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay S/O. Basweshwar Lamture and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nagesh Gangadhar Vibhute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shyam S/O. Vishnu Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sambhaji Kachru Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gunwant@Dhudaku Trymbak Patil Vs the State of Maharashstra

Devidas S/O. Baburao Gavai and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.