Allowed

Janardhan S/O. Dagdu Gorkhude (C-8245) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Nov 2019WP/1852/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a life convict who completed seven years imprisonment, challenged the rejection of his furlough leave application. The Court held he must be given an opportunity to demonstrate he is no longer a danger to society before assessment of Rule 4 grounds. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting furlough leave set aside; petitioner released on furlough within fifteen days.

Janardhan S/O. Dagdu Gorkhude (C-8245) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 ) 952 WP 1852.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 OF 2019

¶4

Janardhan s/o Dagdu Gorkhude (C-8245)
Age: Major, Occu: Nil,
R/o At present Aurangabad Open Prison,
Dist. Aurangabad....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra,

¶7

2. The Deputy Superintendent of the Open Prison Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad.

¶8

3.The Deputy Inspector General
of Police Central Prison at Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents

¶9

Mrs. Chate Sharada P., Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. V.S. Choudhari, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE :28.11.2019

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both the

¶13

sides for final disposal.

¶14

2.The present proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by
the respondents nos.2 and 3 by which the furlough leave application filed by
the petitioner prisoner is rejected. The submissions made and the record

¶15

show that the petitioner is behind the bars as a life convict for the offence

¶16

( 2 ) 952 WP 1852.19

¶17

punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and he has completed the jail
sentence of more than seven years. He is eligible for getting furlough and this
will be the first time when he will be coming out of the prison. There is
another ground given for rejection that there is a possibility that he may jump
furlough. Submissions made show that the petitioner is kept in Central
Prison. Adverse police report is generally given on the basis of statements of
the witnesses. When the case is decided there is no question of tampering the
witnesses. The witnesses will always take objection to such release.

¶18

3.This will be the first time when the prisoner will be coming out of
jail on furlough leave after completing seven years imprisonment. Considering
the purpose behind the scheme of furlough leave, this Court holds that an
opportunity needs to be given to the prisoner-petitioner to show that he is no
more danger to the society. Unless such opportunity is given it cannot be
ascertained as to whether he is danger to the society. Both the grounds under
Rule 4(4) and 4(20) are not sustainable.

¶19

4.In view of the aforesaid circumstances. The petition is allowed.
The order made by the respondents is hereby set aside. The petitioner is to be
released on furlough leave on usual terms and conditions. It is to be done
within fifteen days from today. Authenticated Copy to both the sides.

¶20

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.]

¶21

mub

Janardhan S/O. Dagdu Gorkhude (C-8245) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardhan S/O. Dagdu Gorkhude (C-8245) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Indubai W/O. Ramesh Sapkale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravina D/O. Gajanan Jadhav @ Pravina W/O. Kailas Sapkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Haneef S/O. Anwar Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Navinesh Chandrakant Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arunkumar Fakirchand Shingi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yamaji S/O. Sarangdhar Bakal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.