A son filed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders rejecting his father's furlough application for life imprisonment. The Court held that the father's history of belated surrender made him ineligible, declining to interfere with prison authorities.
Writ petition rejected and Rule discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Laxmikant Digitally signed by Laxmikant G. G. Chandan Chandan Date: 2021.02.2313:44:02 +0530
cri.wp-556.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.556 OF 2021
Akshay s/o Jayant Sonawane ]
Age : 18 years, Occu : Student]
R/o : Bharat Nagar, Near Sk Oil Mill]
Jalgaon.]
(Father of the Petitioner, Jayant S/o Abhimanyu]
Sonawane, Detained at, Nasik Road Central Prison]
As Convict No.6126]….. Petitioner.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ] ]2] The I. G. Prisons, Pune ] ]3] The D.I.G. Prisons, Pune ] ]4] The Superintendent ] Central Prison, Nasik Road ]….. Respondents.Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal for the Petitioner.
Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, MANISH PITALE, JJ
Reserved on : 11th FEBRUARY 2021
Pronounced on :23rd FEBRUARY 2021
JUDGMENT :(PER S. S. SHINDE, J)
1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2By this Writ Petition the Petitioner seeks the following substantial
reliefs :-
1 of 6
lgc
cri.wp-556.21.odt
“(B)To quash and set aside order of Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 and dated 15/02/2020, and 10.08.2020 respectively and thereby direct Respondent No.3 to release Petitioner’s father on furlough leave.”3The present Writ Petition is filed by the son of accused, The
accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for
the offences punishable uder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the
Judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The accused was
arrested on 07/11/2003 and was an under trial prisoner for approximately 3
years. It is the case of the Petitioner that the convict i.e. the father of the
Petitioner applied for furlough to Superintendent, Central Jail Nasik. The said
application was forwarded by the Jail Authority to the DIG, Prisons, Pune who
has rejected the same by order dated 15/02/2020 on he ground that the father
of the Petitioner had absconded when earlier released on furlough. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the father of the Petitioner preferred an Appeal
before Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has rejected the said
Appeal on the ground that the convict had belatedly surrendered before the jail
authority on the previous occasions when he was released on furlough/parole
Hence the present Writ Petition.
4 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that for the late surrender the name of convict has already been removed from remission register and since more than 5 years, he is not on remission register. It is lgc 2 of 6
cri.wp-556.21.odt
further submitted that the father of the Petitioner is not released on
parole/furlough since 2016, and he had undergone the period of more than 12
years and 5 months of actual imprisonment. The learned counsel therefore
submitted that both the Authorities have not considered the application of the
Petitioner’s father for furlough/parole leave in proper perspective. He,
therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed.
5On the other hand the learned APP appearing for the Respondent/
State submits that the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. He further
submitted that the reasons recorded by both the authorities in rejecting the
furlough to the accused are plausible reasons as the accused had surrendered
belatedly every time when he was released on furlough/parole. He, therefore,
prays that the writ petition may be rejected.
5We have given our 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.
6It is an undisputed fact that the convict i.e. the Petitioner’s father
is an accused, and the learned Sesssions Judge, Jalgaon convicted him for the
3 of 6
lgc
cri.wp-556.21.odt
offence punishable under Section 302 and sentenced him to suffer life
imprisonment. The learned counsel APP for the Respondent/State invites our
attention to impugned orders passed by the Jail Authorities. We have perused
the reasons recorded by both the Authorities. While rejecting the furlough
both the Authorities have considered the Police report which is adverse. The
name of the convict has been removed from the Remission Register. Both the
Authorities have concurrently held that considering the past history of the
convict that in the year 2008 when he was released on furlough/parole, he
belatedly surrendered before the Jail Authyority by 804 days and 858 days,
and in the year 2013 when the convict was released on furlough/parole, he
was surrendered belatedly by 67 days and 19 days. Therefore considering the
past history of the convict, both the Authorities have rejected the
application/appeal of the convict for furlough in terms of Rule 4(4), 4(10) and
4(20) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
7Rule 4(4), 4(10) and 4(20) which forms the basis of rejection of
the application/application filed by the father of the Petitioner reads thus :-
“ 4 Eligibility for furlough :- All Indian prisoners except from following categories whose annual conduct reports are good shall be eligible for furlough :-(1) to (11)….…..
(4) Prisoners whose release is not recommended in Police4 of 6
lgc
cri.wp-556.21.odt
Commissionerate area by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police and elsewhere, by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police on the grounds of public peace and tranquility;
(5) to (9)………
(10) Prisoners who have at any time escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough;(11) to (19)….…..
(20) who in the opinion of police/prison authorities are likely to jump furlough;(21)……..”
8 The father of 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. He was in habit of surrendering him belatedly to
the Respondent Jail Authority, when he was released on furlough. We,
therefore, find substance in the contention raised by the learned APP that if the
convict is released on furlough/parole, there are chances of his absconding
and/or surrendering him belatedly. 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.
lgc
5 of 6
cri.wp-556.21.odt
9In view of the aforesaid Rules 4(4), 4(10) and 4(12) of the Prisons
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and in view of the afore-stated
reasons, the Petitioner’s father is not eligible/entitled for the release on
furlough/parole. In the past the father of the Petitioner has committed default
by way of surrendering him at the appropriate time after release on
furlough/parole. The Respondent-Authorities, therefore, right in holding that
the father of the Petitioner is likely to jump furlough. The police report is also
adverse to the convict. We, therefore, do not deem it appropriate to interfere
with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Respondent-Authorities.
There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition stands
rejected. Accordingly Rule stands discharged.
[MANISH PITALE, J]
[S. S. SHINDE , J]
6 of 6
lgc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the prison authorities' rejection of furlough leave application for a life convict with a history of belated surrender.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Akshay s/o Jayant Sonawane
The State of Maharashtra
The I. G. Prisons, Pune
The D.I.G. Prisons, Pune
The Superintendent Central Prison, Nasik Road
S. S. SHINDE
MANISH PITALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court