Allowed

Dada @ Pravin Satish Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Apr 2018WP/1557/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, pronounced guilty under Section 364 IPC, challenged the rejection of his furlough application. The High Court held that a two-day delay in self-surrender was not a serious ground to reject the application and that conviction under Section 364 IPC, not Section 364-A, did not bar furlough under the new Notification dated 16.4.2018. The court set aside the rejection orders and directe

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition for furlough allowed; orders dated 12.4.2016 and 23.8.2016 set aside; authorities directed to consider furlough application afresh.

Dada @ Pravin Satish Pawar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

jdk 1 11.crwp.1557.17.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1557 OF 2017

¶4

C/16509 Dada alias Pravin Satish Pawar, B-Yard, Yerawada Central Prison, Pune-6

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for State

¶10

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J.

¶11

DATED : APRIL 23, 2018

¶12

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

¶13

1 Heard both sides.

¶14

2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 12.10.2015. The said application was rejected by order dated 12.4.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated

¶15

jdk 2 11.crwp.1557.17.j.doc

¶16

23.8.2016, hence, this petition.

¶17

3 The application of the petitioner came to be mainly rejected on the ground that his case falls under clause 14(10) and 4(13) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. As far as sub-clause (10) is concerned, the learned A.P.P. stated that the case of the petitioner fell under subclause (10) as in 2013 when the petitioner was granted parole, he did not surrender back in time and there was delay of two days. As far as sub-clause (13) is concerned, the learned A.P.P. pointed out that the petitioner has been convicted in a case under Section 364 of IPC, hence, sub-clause (13) is attracted. She submitted that these are the main reasons that furlough was not granted to the petitioner.

¶18

4 As far as sub-clause (10) is concerned, it is seen that no doubt there was delay of two days in surrendering back to the prison on the part of the petitioner, however, it is be noted that the petitioner was not arrested by the police and brought back to the prison, but he reported back to the prison on his own though after a delay of 2 days, hence, we are of the

¶19

2 of 4

¶20

jdk 3 11.crwp.1557.17.j.doc

¶21

opinion that it is not a serious enough ground to reject the application of the petitioner for furlough.

¶22

5 As far as sub-clause (13) is concerned, sub-clause (13) as it stood at the time of rejection of the application of the petitioner for furlough, was that if a person was convicted for an offence of kidnapping, he was not eligible to be granted furlough. This is pursuant to the Notification dated 23.3.2012. However, Ms. Dandekar pointed out that the Government has reconsidered the entire Rules relating to parole and furlough and as per the new Notification which is dated 16.4.2018, the conviction for an offence of kidnapping simplicitor would not make a prisoner ineligible to be granted furlough. She further pointed out that as per the new Notification only if it is a case of kidnapping for ransom which falls under Section 364-A of IPC, only then the prisoner would be ineligible to be granted furlough. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been convicted under Section 364-A of IPC but he has been convicted only under Section 364 of IPC. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders dated 12.4.2016 and 23.8.2016. The authorities to consider the application of the petitioner dated

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

jdk 4 11.crwp.1557.17.j.doc

¶25

12.10.2015 for furlough afresh and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

6 Petition is allowed and Rule made absolute in above

¶27

terms.

¶28

7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.

¶29

M.S.SONAK, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

kandarkar

¶31

4 of 4

Dada @ Pravin Satish Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dada @ Pravin Satish Pawar 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

Somnath Mangal Pawshe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Somnath Mangal Pawshe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Ambadas Bankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Vishna Shewale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Suresh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Suresh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra