Allowed

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

Bombay HC14 Mar 2018WP/94/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of furlough leave for a convict. The court quashed impugned orders and directed release, holding that pending appeals and co-accused absconding are not valid barers, distinguishing prior precedents specific to TADA convicts.

What did the court decide?

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

Dattatraya Tulshiram Phirange (C-9797) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0094 of 2018

¶4

District : Osmanabad Dattatraya s/o. Tulshiram Phirange, Age Major, Occupation Nil, Convict No.C/9797, R/o. Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. Additional Director General of Police & Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune-1. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Central Region, Aurangabad. 4. Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. .. Respondents. ........... Mr. P.P. Karegaonkar, Advocate (appointed), for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.01 to 04.

¶5

...........

¶6

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶7

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

¶8

 DATE : 14TH MARCH 2018

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

02.By the present petition, the petitioner -
convict no. C-9797 is challenging the order dated
15.06.2017, 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 03.11.2017, passed by
respondent no.02 i.e. Addl. D.G.P. & Inspector
General of Prisons, Pune, thereby rejecting the
appeal preferred by the petitioner.

¶12

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 is,
one of the co-accused by name, Gulab Birajdar
(Bhosale) is absconding since 29.01.2016 when
released on leave. Another co-accused, by name
Shrikrishna Mandale is on leave since 20.06.2017.

¶13

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶14

One of the grounds 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 not entitled for furlough leave. The last ground for rejection is, there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent.

¶15

04. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, that the grounds for rejection of furlough leave to the petitioner, are vague and unsustainable. He submits, that filing of appeal against conviction and sentence is a statutory right of the convict. He further submits, that a co-accused is absconding when released on leave, is also a reason which is untenable. So far as judgment of this Court, in the case of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon (supra) , the learned Counsel submits that the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the convict in the said case was undergoing sentence for the conviction under 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

¶17

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶18

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 :

¶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

¶22

(Judgment) (5) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶23

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.

¶24

06.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondents has opposed the petition and
supported the impugned orders. He has urged that the
petition may be dismissed.

¶25

07. So far as the ground, that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending before this Court, is concerned, same is not tenable. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, filing of appeal is a statutory right of the convict and pendency of appeal has no nexus with grant or rejection of furlough leave. So also, if a coaccused is absconding when released on leave, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his liberty to avail furlough leave. The ground, that in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon (supra) the petitioner cannot be granted furlough leave, is also untenable. The petitioner in that case was a convict under 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

¶26

(Judgment) (6) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶27

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. So far as last ground, that there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent, is concerned, the leave sanctioning authority can suo motu call remark in respect of recommendation or otherwise from the Jail Superintendent.

¶28

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 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

(Judgment) (7) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶30

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 :

¶31

"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 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.

¶32

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

¶33

(Judgment) (8) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶34

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]. "

¶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 15.06.2017, passed by
respondent no.03 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons, Aurangabad, so also, order dated 03.11.2017,
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

(Judgment) (9) Cri. W.P. No. 0094 of 2018

¶40

12.Learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Karegaonkar was
appointed to represent the case of the petitioner.
His fees is quantified at Rs. 3,000/- [Rupees three
thousand].

¶41

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

¶42

...........

¶43

puranik / CRIWP94.18

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Tulshiram Phirange (C-9797) 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

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.

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

Vijaykumar Shrirang Jadhav (C-31) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd Ali Mohd Habib Shaikh C-4654 Vs Sandeep Kamble and Another

Supriya Chandrakant Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others