Partly allowed

Pradeepkumar C Murugan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2022WP/2182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal convict challenged the rejection of his furlough leave application. The High Court held that mere invocation of a rule prohibiting likely absconders without specific reasons, especially when police reports showed no adverse local status, was arbitrary. The Court quashed the rejection and ordered the release on furlough.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejected furlough leave are quashed; respondents directed to grant furlough leave within four weeks on applicable terms and conditions.

Pradeepkumar C Murugan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

19-WP-2182-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2182 OF 2022

¶3

Pradeepkumar C. Murugan ] Adult, Indian Inhabitant, ] Age – 35 years, Occ. : Service, ] Prisoner No. C/18408, ] R/o. D/No.4/222, Ettikutai Street, ] Jagir Ammapalayam, ] Salem – 636 302, Tamil Nadu. ] (Presently lodged at Yerwada ] Central Prison, Pune) ] … Petitioner Versus

¶4

1. State of Maharashtra ] (through the office of the ] Public Prosecutor, ] High Court, Bombay) ]

¶5

1. Dy. Inspector General of ] Prisons, Western Region, ] Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. ]

¶6

1. Addl. Director General of ] Police and Inspector General ] of Prison and Correctional ] Services, Maharashtra State, ] Old Central Building, ] 2^nd Floor, Pune – 411 001. ]

¶7

1. Superintendent of Jail, ] Yerwada Central Prison, ] Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. ] … Respondents

Kanchan P Dhuri

1 / 4

19-WP-2182-2022.odt

Mr. Tanveer Khan for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State.

¶12

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 8 JULY 2022

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NITIN JAMDAR, J.) :

¶14

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned APP for the Respondent-State waives service.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Taken up for disposal.

¶16

By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the orders passed by Respondent No.2 dated 3 November 2021 and 22 December 2021 by Respondent No.3. The Petitioner applied for furlough leave as per the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (the Rules 1959), which was rejected.

¶17

By Judgment and Order dated 10 December 2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pune, the Petitioner is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Kanchan P Dhuri

2 / 4

19-WP-2182-2022.odt

The impugned order refers to the report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Salem City, that if released, the Petitioner might abscond. Based on this report, the Respondents have opined that in light of Rule 4(20) of the Rules 1959, the Petitioner is not entitled to be released on furlough leave. The learned APP has placed before us the report, which annexes the report received from the Deputy Commissioner Police, South Salem City.

¶22

The report from Salem Authorities states that verification made of the local police revealed nothing adverse as per the record. The Police Station, Salem City, has stated that the sister of the Petitioner has given a written statement mentioning that when the Petitioner is released on furlough, no adverse incident will occur. After stating that there has nothing adverse against the Petitioner, the Salem authorities have stated that if released, there is a possibility that the Petitioner would abscond.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was convicted on the allegation that he had committed the murder of his father where he had taken the defence of unsoundness of mind, and it is not the prosecution case that there is any threat to the society.

Kanchan P Dhuri

3 / 4

19-WP-2182-2022.odt

Rule 4(20) of the Rules 1959 states that those who are, in the opinion of the police/prison authorities, likely to jump furlough are not eligible for furlough leave. In the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Salem City and the impugned order, only the language of this Rule has been reproduced. It is not enough that only the language of the Rule is to be reproduced, but the authority must elaborate the reason as to why it is invoked. This is necessary to ensure that the power under Rule 4 is not arbitrarily exercised. We have not been shown any reason whatsoever for how this conclusion arrived at. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Salem City, has otherwise found nothing adverse against the Petitioner. Considering this position, we are of the opinion that Petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶28

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to release the Petitioner on furlough leave as prayed on such terms and conditions as per the Rules within a period of four weeks from today.

¶29

( N.R. BORKAR, J. )

¶30

( NITIN JAMDAR, J. )

¶31

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN PRASHANT PRASHANT DHURIDate: DHURI 2022.07.13 17:29:25 +0530

¶32

Kanchan P Dhuri

¶33

4 / 4

Pradeepkumar C Murugan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeepkumar C Murugan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Ramesh Rajanna Pandari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nasreen Alias Sufi Nazir Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kamlabai Madhukarrao Deshmukh(Pichad) and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Motiram Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kamlesh Mahadeo Oze and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.