Dismissed

Sanjay Shivaji Limbole v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Sept 2023WP/2170/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner convicted for murder and cruelty sought to quash rejection of his furlough leave appeal. Court noted adverse police report regarding law and order risks and surety's incompetence, holding 릴 no absolute right to furlough leave under the 1959 Prisons Rules.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash rejection of furlough appeal dismissed with no reason to interfere with impugned Order.

Sanjay Shivaji Limbole Vs State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:28780-DB

¶2

samandawgad 96criwp2170-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2170 OF 2023

¶6

Sanjay Shivaji Limbole ...Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Prosper D’Souza for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 27^th September, 2023.

¶9

P. C. : (Per Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.):

¶10

Heard Mr. D’Souza, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Hulke,learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

The Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 3^rd February, 2023 passed by the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General, (Prisons and Rehabilitation) rejecting the Petitioner’s furlough Appeal against the Order of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Western Region, Yerwada, Pune dated 11^th November, 2022.

¶12

The Petitioner, a convict in Sessions Case No.40 of 2008 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence

¶13

1/ 4

¶14

samandawgad 96criwp2170-23.doc

¶15

punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶16

Mr. D’Souza, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, even in the year 2021 the Petitioner has been denied furlough leave and as such the Petitioner is not able to maintain continuity with his family life. He submits that, the application has been rejected as the Petitioner had overstayed for period of 2829 days when released on parole earlier, however, he was not arrested as wrongly claimed but had surrendered himself. He would submit that, the Petitioner has maintained good conduct and is entitled to be released on furlough.

¶17

Learned APP points out the Affidavit dated 27^th August, 2023 filed by Sunil Nivrutti Dhamal-Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison. It is stated in the said Affidavit that, upon the Petitioner’s application for furlough leave, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special) Solapur City conducted an inquiry and has forwarded an adverse police report dated 22^nd July, 2022 which was accepted by Deputy Inspector General of Prisons as against which the appeal preferred was also rejected. That, considering the adverse police report, if the prisoner is released on furlough there is possibility of law and order situation being disturbed. It is also stated that, when released on parole earlier, the Petitioner had absconded and after 2829 days, he was arrested and lodged in prison. It is further stated that, surety suggested by the Petitioner is his mother

¶18

2/ 4

¶19

samandawgad 96criwp2170-23.doc

¶20

who is not competent to control the Petitioner if he is released on furlogh.

¶21

On 3^rd June, 2022 an application for furlough leave was filed by the Petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch), Solapur City has given an adverse report that there is possibility of law and order situation being disturbed if furlough leave is granted, that the surety is not capable of controlling the Petitioner and that the Petitioner had not surrendered in time when released on parole earlier and crime has been registered against him in that behalf. Based on adverse police report, the application for furlough leave was rejected as also the appeal. 7. It is not disputed that, in the year 2011 when the Petitioner was released on parole, he had not surrendered in time and after 2829 days, the police had arrested the Petitioner. Although, the learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that the Petitioner himself had surrendered, the fact remains that the Petitioner had overstayed for period of 2829 days and crime under Section 224 of IPC was registered against the Petitioner. The police/prison authorities have given an adverse report and are of the opinion that it is not advisable to grant furlough leave to the Petitioner and that the surety proposed by the Petitioner is not capable of controlling the Petitioner, if released on furlough leave.

¶22

3/ 4

¶23

samandawgad 96criwp2170-23.doc

¶24

The Petitioner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough leave and limitations are imposed by Rule 4 of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Sub-Rule (10) and Sub-Rule (20) of Rule 4 have been relied upon while rejecting the Petitioner’s application for furlough.

¶25

The Appellate Authority has concurred with the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Order dated 11^th November, 2022 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. Considering the facts of the present case, the provisions of Sub-Rule (10) and Sub-Rule (20) of Rule 4 of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 have rightly been applied to the present case.

¶26

In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order. Petition fails and is dismissed.

¶27

(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶28

4/ 4

Sanjay Shivaji Limbole v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Shivaji Limbole v. 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

Avshesh Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajit Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sajjan S/O. Devaram Choudhary Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akhtar Kamal Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nawab Abdul Samad Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Vishvanath Tanpathak S/O. Vishvanath Vaman Tanpathak Vs the Senior Police Inspector, Vishnu Nagar Police Station and Anr.