Allowed

Latif Hasan Madari (C-9193) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Mar 2018WP/263/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of furlough leave for a convict. The Court held that pendency of an appeal and lack of Superintendent's recommendation are not valid grounds for denial, distinguishing the case based on the conviction statute involved.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioner directed to be released on furlough leave after complying with necessary formalities.

Latif Hasan Madari (C-9193) Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 0263 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0263 of 2018

¶4

District : Nashik

¶5

Latif Hasan Madari,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Nil,
District Aurangabad,
Presently Prisoner,
Convict No.9193,
Central Prison,
District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶6

versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. Inspector General of Prison, Aurangabad. 3. The Additional Inspector General of Police, Pune. .. Respondents. ........... Mrs. Varsha M. Bhagwat, Advocate (appointed), for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.01 to 03. ...........

¶7

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

¶8

 DATE : 23RD MARCH 2018

¶9

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 0263 of 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-9193 has challenged the order dated
03.04.2017, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons,Aurangabad,therebyrejectingthe
application made by the petitioner seeking furlough
leave. The petitioner has also challenged the order
dated 18.08.2017, passed by the Addl. D.G.P. &
Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, thereby rejecting
the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

¶13

03. The prayer of the petitioner seeking furlough leave was rejected on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending before this Court. Another ground for rejection of furlough leave was, 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 not entitled for furlough leave. The furlough leave is also rejected on the ground that there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent.

¶14

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0263 of 2018

¶15

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

¶16

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 :

¶17

"2. The learned PP submits that the appropriate Authorities have advised State Government which is

¶18

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 0263 of 2018

¶19

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 has supported the impugned orders and
urged that the petition be dismissed.

¶23

07.So far as the ground, that the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against his conviction

¶24

(Judgment) (5) Cri. W.P. No. 0263 of 2018

¶25

and sentence is pending before this Court, is not tenable. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, filing of an appeal against conviction and sentence 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 matter of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The convict in the said case was undergoing sentence under the provisions of the 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 in hand. 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 untenable. The leave sanctioning authority can suo motu call remarks in respect of 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
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

¶27

(Judgment) (6) Cri. W.P. No. 0263 of 2018

¶28

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, 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

¶31

(Judgment) (7) Cri. W.P. No. 0263 of 2018

¶32

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

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

¶35

(Judgment) (8) Cri. W.P. No. 0263 of 2018

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

The impugned dated 03.04.2017 (Exhibit "A"),
passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Aurangabad, so also, order dated 18.08.2017 (Exhibit
"B"), passed by the Addl. D.G.P. & Inspector General
of Prisons, Pune, are quashed and set aside. The
petitioner is directed to be released on furlough
leave, as expeditiously as possible, after complying
necessary formalities.

¶39

12.Learned Advocate Mrs. Varsha M. Bhagwat 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 / CRIWP263.18

Latif Hasan Madari (C-9193) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latif Hasan Madari (C-9193) 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

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh Vs K. Subramanyam, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mumbai and Others

Saiyed Najer S/O. Saiyed Sandhu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohan S/O. Rajendra Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajnikant S/O. Ramnarayan Pandey Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ambarishi S/O. Shripadrao Patil (C-4679) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Nilesh S/O. Hiralal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.