Allowed

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

Bombay HC12 Mar 2018WP/1799/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal writ petition filed by a convict seeking furlough leave, quashing orders rejecting his claim. The Court held that an appeal's pendency is not a valid bar to furlough and directed the petitioner's release.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released on furlough leave as expeditiously as possible after complying with necessary formalities.

Akash Pandurang Jahire (C-9605) Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 01799 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 01799 of 2017

¶4

District : Nanded

¶5

Akash Pandurang Jahire (C-9605), Age : 24 years, Occupation : Nil, At present : Circle No.2/6, Central Prison, Nashik Road, Nashik. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. Spl. IG Police (Prison)(HQ), 2nd Floor, Old Central Building, Pune - 1. 3. Dy.Inspector General of Prison, Central Region, Aurangabad. 4. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Nashik Road, Nashik. .. Respondents. ........... Ms. Smita S. Kulkarni, Advocate (appointed), for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.01 to 04.

¶6

...........

¶7

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 01799 of 2017

¶8

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

¶9

 DATE : 12TH MARCH 2018

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.] :

¶11

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

¶12

02.By the present petition, the petitioner -
convict no. C-9605 is challenging the order dated
05.04.2017, passed by respondent no.03 i.e. Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad, thereby
rejecting the application made by the petitioner
seeking furlough leave. The petitioner has also
challenged the order dated 01.09.2017, passed by
respondent no.02 i.e. Addl. D.G.P. & Inspector
General of Prisons, Pune, thereby rejecting the
appeal preferred by the petitioner.

¶13

03. The prayer of the petitioner for furlough leave was rejected on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending before this Court. The next ground for rejection is, in view of the judgment of this Court delivered at principal seat, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4017 of 2016, in the matter of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others , dated 22nd December 2016, the petitioner is entitled for furlough leave. The last ground mentioned is, there

¶14

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 01799 of 2017

¶15

is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent.

¶16

04. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, that the grounds mentioned for rejection of furlough leave are vague and unsustainable. She submits, that filing of an appeal against conviction and sentence is a statutory right of the convict and, therefore, the ground in this respect is untenable. She further submits, that the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the convict in the said case was undergoing sentence for conviction under the provisions of Terrorist and Destructive Activities Act, 1987. She has, therefore, urged that the petition be allowed and the petitioner may be released on furlough leave.

¶17

05. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in so far as the first ground in respect of pendency of appeal, is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench was pleased to consider this very aspect. Our attention is invited to the copy of an unreported order dated April 26, 2017, in Criminal Writ Petition (CWP) No. 196 of 2017 and Criminal Writ Petition (CWP) No. 97 of 2017, in the matter of Arun s/o. Gulab Gawli & another Vs. State of Maharashtra , through its Secretary, Home Department & others. It would be useful to refer observations of the Division Bench in paras 2 and 3 of the order, which read as under :

¶18

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 01799 of 2017

¶19

"2. The learned PP submits that the appropriate Authorities have advised State Government which is taking some steps and those steps may result in amendment to the Rules. She seeks time till after vacation to make a definite statement in this respect.

¶20

3. The learned Senior Advocate has no objection provided the request of the petitioner for grant of furlough in Criminal Writ Petition No. 97 of 2017 is considered. He also adds that from the response of the respondents, it appears that they have accepted the inconsistency or arbitrariness in the provision which denies furlough to the prisoners whose appeal challenging conviction is pending and bail application is rejected by the High Court. " (Emphasis supplied)

¶21

The Division Bench, in view of the statement made
before the Court and on considering other grounds,
namely, a vague police report and the track of leave
of the petitioner, found that there was no reason to
deny furlough leave. The Division Bench accordingly
directed release of the petitioner in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 97 of 2017 on furlough leave, within two
weeks from the date of the order, after obtaining
appropriate bonds, undertakings from the convict and
his relatives / sureties.

¶22

06.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
respondents opposed the petition and urged that the
petition be dismissed.

¶23

(Judgment) (5) Cri. W.P. No. 01799 of 2017

¶24

07. So far as the ground, that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending before this Court, same is untenable. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, filing of an appeal is a statutory right of the convict. It has no nexus with grant or rejection of furlough leave. So also, ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the convict was undergoing sentence for conviction under the provisions of Terrorist and Destructive Activities Act, 1987, and rigors of the notification dated 23.02.2012, more particularly, Sub-Rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, were fully applicable to the petitioner therein. Such is not the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner is not suffering punishment for any act under the provisions of TADA. The last ground, that there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent, is also not tenable. The leave sanctioning authority can suo motu call for

¶25

recommendation or otherwise from the Jail
Superintendent.

¶26

08.There is no dispute, that the very circular
which is referred to in the order prevents the
prisoner to avail the benefit and statement was made
before the Division Bench at Nagpur Bench, that the

¶27

(Judgment) (6) Cri. W.P. No. 01799 of 2017

¶28

State Government is in process to re-think the rule and if necessary, cause an amendment to rule. We may also take note of the decision by Division Bench of this Court at this Bench, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1010 of 2017, in the matter of Shivaji Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others , decided on 13.10.2017. So also, a useful reference can be made to the decision of Division Bench of this Court at this Bench, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1237 of 2017, in the matter of Hariom Vijay Pandey Vs. The Superintendent & others decided on the same day. In both these petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had taken note of the above referred judgment of the Division Bench at Nagpur Bench, in the matter of Arun s/o. Gulab Gawli & another (supra) and the benefit was then given to the petitioners therein.

¶29

09. Further, we may refer to a Full Bench judgment of this Court at principal seat in the matter of S. Sant Singh @ Pilli Singh Ajit Singh Kalyani Vs. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra & others [2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 422 = 2006(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 743] . Though this is the case which was pronounced prior to Government Circular dated 26.08.2016, yet it appears that at that time also, there was similar provision, wherein it has been observed in paras 26 and 27 of the judgment, thus :

¶30

"26. The provisions of law clearly disclose that once a person is convicted and sentence is imposed by the Court,

¶31

(Judgment) (7) Cri. W.P. No. 01799 of 2017

¶32

and such person is sent to jail as a prisoner the execution of the sentence imposed upon him is to be done by the appropriate Government in accordance with the rules framed in that regard. Once a person is in prison he would be governed by the Prisons Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. The Prison Rules clearly provide for grant of parole. It is for the Competent Authority or the Government to decide as to whether any Parole for any particular period is to be granted to the convicts undergoing imprisonment period and on the conditions as may be fixed. It is, therefore, clear that merely because a convict prefers an appeal before the Appellate Court, that would not divest the Government of its powers under the Prison Act to deal with the management of the convict by following the rules framed under the said Act.

¶33

From this, it is clear that the powers of the State to grant Parole are not fettered even if the appeal of the convict is pending before the Court. Thus, the Competent Authority or the Government would have the legal competence to entertain an application for parole by following the procedure set out under the Prison Rules to meet the contingencies stated therein. The exercise of such power would not be in any way be in conflict with the powers exercised under section 389 and/or Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also evident that the amendments carried out in this scheme of Rules 19 and 25 in the year 1989 have provided for adequate safeguards so as to ensure that the benefit of parole leave is not misused or abused so as to defeat or nullify the Courts order passed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as was noticed in Jayant Veerappa Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra [1986(1) Bom.C.R.311 = 1986 Cri.L.J. 1298]. "

¶34

(Judgment) (8) Cri. W.P. No. 01799 of 2017

¶35

Thus, we find that this reason cannot be a hurdle in
the way of the petitioner.

¶36

10.In the facts and circumstances of the case,
learned Counsel for the petitioner has made out a
case for grant of relief as prayed in the petition.

¶37

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

¶38

The impugned order dated 05.04.2017, passed by
respondent no.03 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons, Aurangabad, so also, order dated 01.09.2017,
passed by respondent no.02 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.

¶39

12.Learned Advocate Ms. Smita S. Kulkarni was
appointed to represent case of the petitioner. Her
fees is quantified at Rs. 3,000/- [Rupees three
thousand].

¶40

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

¶41

...........

¶42

puranik / CRIWP1799.17

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Pandurang Jahire (C-9605) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Afsarunnisa Begum Shaikh Nizam Vs Sreedhar Govindrajan

Hanif Gulam Rasool Makrani C-9118 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Mustakin Shaikh Tukadu and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Arif Shaikh Maheboob and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dattatraya Tulshiram Phirange (C-9797) Vs the State of Maharashtra