Dismissed

Nitin Subhash Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Mar 2021WP/508/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a life convict seeking quashing of orders rejecting his applications for furlough and parole. Upholding the prison authorities' findings based on adverse police reports, apprehension of danger to witnesses, and likelihood of absconding, the judgment denied relief but granted liberty to reapply after six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Liberty to apply afresh for furlough/parole after a period of six months.

Nitin Subhash Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed Laxmikant by Laxmikant G. Chandan G. Date: Chandan 2021.03.23 12:16:05 +0530

¶2

cri.wp-508.20.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.508 OF 2020

¶5

Nitin Subhash Pawar ]
Age : 27 years, Occ. Nil]
R/o. N-42/JB/1/6/3, Sryanarayan]
Chowk, Pavan Nagar, Cidco, Nashik]….. Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1]The State of Maharashtra]
]
2]The Superintendent,]
Central Prison]
Nashik]
]
3]Deputy Inspector General of Prison]
Central Division Aurangabad]
]
4]Upper Police Director General and ]
Inspector General of Prison and ]
Correction Services]
State of Maharashtra Pune-1]….. Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Mohansinh U Rajput appointed for the Petitioner.
Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, MANISH PITALE, JJ

¶10

Reserved on : 17th MARCH 2021
Pronounced on :23rd MARCH 2021

¶11

JUDGMENT :(PER S. S. SHINDE, J)

¶12

1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

¶13

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

1 of 7

¶15

lgc

¶16

cri.wp-508.20.odt

¶17

2 By this Writ Petition the Petitioner seeks the following substantial

¶18

reliefs :-

¶19

“(A)To Quash and Set Aside the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 (Deputy Inspector General of Prison Central Division Aurangabad) rejecting the application preferred b6y the petitioner for rleasing him on furlough and parole (accumulated leave) as per prison rules and further to Quash and Set Aside order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.4 (Upper Police Director General and Inspector General of Prison and Correction Services State of Maharashtra Pune-1) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner for releasing him on furlough and parole (accumulated leave) as per prison rules.”

¶20

3 The Petitioner herein is an accused who has been convicted and

¶21

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the District Judge-4 & Additional
Sessions Judge, Nashik. The Petitioner is in jail since 06/09/2013 i.e. for a
period of more than seven years. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order
of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, the Petitioner preferred
Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.3460 of 2021 along with Interim Application
No.673 of 2021 for bail before this Court, which is pending as on date. It is the
case of the Petitioner that through the Respondent No.2 herein i.e. the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Nashik, he preferred an application dated

¶22

2 of 7

¶23

lgc

¶24

cri.wp-508.20.odt

¶25

15/04/2019 to the Respondent No.3 herein for furlough/parole, but the said
application came to be rejected by Respondent No.3 vide order dated
18/07/2019. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18/07/2019, the
Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Respondent No.4. However, the said
Appeal was also rejected by the Respondent No.4 vide order dated
30/11/2019. The Petitioner challenges the said two orders by filing this Writ
Petition.

¶26

4The learned counsel appointed for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is in jail since 06/09/2013 i.e. for a period of more than seven years
and since then he is unable to meet his old mother who is totally dependent on
him. It is also submitted that as per the Maharashtra Prison Rules, the
Petitioner is eligible for furlough on completion of three years imprisonment.
He further submitted that the accused is to be considered as innocent unless
proved guilty by final court of adjudication, and this principle is not considered
by the jail authorities while considering the application/appeal of the
Petitioner. The learned counsel therefore submitted that both the Authorities
have not considered the application/appeal of Petitioner for furlough/parole
leave in proper perspective. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be
allowed.

¶27

5On the other hand the learned APP appearing for the Respondent/

¶28

3 of 7

¶29

lgc

¶30

cri.wp-508.20.odt

¶31

State submits that the Petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. He further
submitted that if the Petitioner is released on furlough/parole, there is danger
to the life of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses as also the
question of law and order may arise. He further submitted that if the
Petitioner is released, he is likely to jump furlough/parole. He, therefore,
submitted that the reasons recorded by both the authorities in rejecting the
furlough to the accused are plausible reasons. He, therefore, prays that the
writ petition may be rejected.

¶32

6We have given due consideration to the rival submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties. With their able assistance we have
perused the pleadings, grounds taken in the Petition and annexures thereto.

¶33

7It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner is an accused and
convicted by the learned District Judge-4 & Additional Sessions Judge, Nshik
for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. The learned counsel APP for the
Respondent/State invites our attention to impugned orders passed by the
Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4. We have perused the reasons
recorded by both the Authorities. While rejecting the furlough/parole both
the Authorities have considered the Police report which is adverse. It is

¶34

4 of 7

¶35

lgc

¶36

cri.wp-508.20.odt

¶37

mentioned in the said police report that if the convict released on
furlough/parole, he may kill the complainant. It is also mentioned in the said
police report that when the complainant had gone to Court, at that time the
convict threatened the complainant. The convict also threatened the
complainant from the jail that if the complainant does not withdraw the case,
he will see the complainant. The complainant accordingly made complaint to
the police. One of the reasons recorded by the jail authorities while rejecting
the application/appeal of the Petitioner for furlough/parole is that, if the
convict is released on furlough/parole, the question of law and order may
arise. Therefore the Respondent No.3 vide order dated 18/07/2019 rejected
the application of the Petitioner for furlough/parole, which order has been
confirmed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No.4. Both the
authorities rejected the application/appeal of the Petitioner in terms of Rule
4(4), and 4(20) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

¶38

8Rule 4(4) and 4(20) which forms the basis of rejection of the
application/application filed by the Petitioner read thus :-

¶39

“ 4 Eligibility for furlough :-

¶40

All Indian prisoners except from following categories
whose annual conduct reports are good shall be eligible
for furlough :-

¶41

(1) to (3)….…..

¶42

(4) Prisoners whose release is not recommended in Police

¶43

5 of 7

¶44

lgc

¶45

cri.wp-508.20.odt

¶46

Commissionerate area by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police and elsewhere, by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police on the grounds of public peace and tranquility;

¶47

(5) to (19)………

¶48

(20) who in the opinion of police/prison authorities are likely to jump furlough;

¶49

(21)……..”

¶50

9 The Petitioner is an accused and convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment. We have carefully perused the police report annexed to the
Petition. The said police report is totally adverse to the Petitioner. There is an
apprehension in the mind of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses
that if the Petitioner is released, he may cause danger to their life. One of the
reasons recorded by the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 in their orders
is that, if the Petitioner is released on furlough/parole, the question of law and
order may arise. We are of the considered view that the reasons recorded by
the Respondent-Authorities while rejecting application/appeal of the father of
the Petitioner are legally sustainable.

¶51

10In view of the aforesaid Rules 4(4) and 4(12) of the Prisons
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and in view of the afore-stated

¶52

lgc 6 of 7

¶53

cri.wp-508.20.odt

¶54

reasons, the Petitioner is not eligible/entitled for the release on
furlough/parole. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is in jail since
06/09/2013 that is for a period of more than seven years. However the police
report is totally adverse to the convict. We find substance in the submission
made by the learned APP that if the Petitioner is released, he is likely to jump
furlough/parole. We, therefore, do not deem it appropriate to interfere with
the concurrent findings recorded by both the Respondent No.3 and Respondent
No.4.

¶55

11 In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However,
the Petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh for furlough/parole after a
period of six months. If the Petitioner files such an application after six months,
the Respondent-authority shall decide the same on its own merits and in
accordance with law

¶56

[MANISH PITALE, J]

¶57

7 of 7

¶58

lgc

Nitin Subhash Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Subhash Pawar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jigesh Dilip Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ms Samran @ Alifiya Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Samran @ Alifiya Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manan Bhavesh Sanghavi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Premkumar Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajneesh Mathur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.