Allowed

Hanif Gulam Rasool Makrani C-9118 v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Mar 2018WP/1653/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench allowed a criminal writ petition challenging rejection of furlough leave. Finding no valid grounds for refusal regarding slightly belated surrender or surety competence, the court quashed impugned orders and directed immediate release on furlough.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejecting furlough leave were quashed and set aside; petitioner directed to be released on furlough leave expeditiously after complying with necessary formalities.

Hanif Gulam Rasool Makrani C-9118 Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 01653 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 01653 of 2017

¶4

District : Nandurbar
Hanif Gulam Rasool Makrani,
Age : Major,
Occupation : convict no.C/9118,
R/o. At Nashik Road Central
Prison, Nashik. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

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

¶7

2. The Divisional Commissioner, The Divisional Commissioner Office, At Nashik Road, Nashik.

¶8

3. The Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.

¶9

4. The Deputy Inspector General (Prison), Central Prison, Harsool, Aurangabad.

¶10

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

¶11

...........

¶12

Mrs. Almas Shaikh Riyaz, Advocate (appointed), for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. S.W. Munde, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.01 to 05.

¶14

(Judgment)

¶15

(2)Cri. W.P. No. 01653 of 2017

¶16

...........

¶17

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶18

 DATE : 08TH MARCH 2018

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Prasanna B. Varale, J.] :

¶20

Heard learned Counsel (appointed) for the
petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
for the respondents.

¶21

02.By the present petition, the petitioner 
convict no. C9118 is challenging the order dated
03.11.2015, passed by respondent no.04 i.e. Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad, thereby
rejecting application made by the petitioner seeking
furlough leave. The petitioner has also challenged
the order dated 29.02.2016, passed by respondent
no.05 i.e. Addl. D.G.P. & Inspector General of
Prisons, Pune, thereby rejecting appeal preferred by
the petitioner.

¶22

03.By inviting our attention to the orders and
more particularly, the order of the appellate
authority, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that only on technical grounds, prayer of
the petitioner for furlough leave is rejected. The
reasons assigned in the order are, of belated
surrender and the surety not competent enough to
control the activities of the petitioner. Learned
Counsel then submitted, both these grounds are
unsustainable. He further submits, that there is

¶23

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 01653 of 2017

¶24

clear error in referring to earlier surrender in the
order. Learned Counsel further submits, that in the
year 2014, the petitioner was granted leave initially
for 30 days and then the leave was extended by 60
days and on that occasion, the surrender was belated
only by 03 days. Learned Counsel then submitted that
merely because the petitioner reported prison
authorities belatedly, the authority rejected the
prayer for furlough leave assigning the ground that
the brother of the petitioner is not competent enough
to control the activities of the petitioner.

¶25

04.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondents was also directed to take
instructions in respect of belated surrender as
mentioned in the impugned order dated 29.02.2016
wherein it is stated that the petitioner surrendered
to the prison authorities on earlier occasion lately
by 63 days. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on
instructions, submitted that it is an error. He
submits, that though the petitioner surrendered to
prison authorities belatedly, extension of leave for
a period of 60 days was granted in favour of the
petitioner. As such, in the impugned order, it ought
to have been mentioned that on earlier occasion, the
petitioner surrendered late by 03 days. Learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that this
mistake or error occurred because of the fact, that
on the day when the impugned order was passed i.e.
29.02.2016, extension of furlough leave of 60 days,
as sought by the petitioner, was not granted and it

¶26

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 01653 of 2017

¶27

was subsequently granted on 04.04.2017.

¶28

05.Thus, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
was justified in respect of the error occurred in the
impugned order dated 29.02.2016, which inadvertently
mentions that the petitioner on earlier occasion
surrendered late to prison authorities by 63 days,
whereas the petitioner surrendered late by 03 days.

¶29

06.Though the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
opposes the petition on the ground that the surety of
the petitioner is not competent enough to control the
activities of the petitioner, we are unable to accept
the submission of the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor. There is absolutely no material so as to
arrive at a conclusion that the brother of the
petitioner, who offered himself to stand as surety of
the petitioner, is unable to control activities of
the petitioner. So also, the ground that on earlier
occasion the petitioner surrendered to prison
authorities belatedly by 03 days, is also
unsustainable. Moreover, though the record shows
that on earlier two occasions, the petitioner
surrendered to prison authorities belatedly,
appropriate punishment was granted by prison
authorities on that count.

¶30

07.Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the opinion that the learned
Counsel for the petitioner has made out a case for
grant of relief as prayed in the petition.

¶31

(Judgment) (5) Cri. W.P. No. 01653 of 2017

¶32

08.In the result, the criminal writ petition is
allowed.

¶33

The impugned order dated 03.11.2015, passed by
respondent no.04 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons, Aurangabad, so also, order dated 29.02.2016,
passed by respondent no.05 i.e. Addl. D.G.P. &
Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, are quashed and
set aside. The petitioner  convict is directed to
be released on furlough leave, as expeditiously as
possible, after complying necessary formalities.

¶34

09.Learned Advocate Mrs. Almas Shaikh Riyaz was
appointed to represent case of the petitioner. Her
fees is quantified at Rs. 3,000/ [Rupees three
thousand].

¶35

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( Prasanna B. Varale )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

...........

¶37

puranik / CRIWP1653.17

Hanif Gulam Rasool Makrani C-9118 v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanif Gulam Rasool Makrani C-9118 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Bhaurao Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Narendra Gorakh Mahale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tukaram Anant Jaykar C-10516 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Afsarunnisa Begum Shaikh Nizam Vs Sreedhar Govindrajan

Aegon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akash Pandurang Jahire (C-9605) Vs the State of Maharashtra