Shri. Arvind Abhilash Singh vs Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6097-DB

¶2

1 27.CRI.WP.223-2026.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 223 OF 2026

¶5

( Shri Arvind Abhilash Singh Vs.

¶6

Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Maharashtra State, Puni-1 & Ors. )

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda	Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms N.R. Tripathi, APP for the Respondents/State.

¶9

CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 18^th APRIL, 2026

¶11

1 . By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who have rejected the Application filed by the Petitioner seeking furlough on the ground that he has been convicted for life till remainder of his life.

¶12

2 . Learned APP submitted that, in view of Rule 4(2) (f) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024 which deals with the category that the prisoners who shall not be eligible for furlough, which is reproduced as under:

¶13

“4(2)(f) prisoners who are convicted for offences related to terrorism, mutiny against State, kidnapping for ransom.”

¶14

2 27.CRI.WP.223-2026.odt

¶15

3 . It is submitted by learned APP that, these rules were amended by the State of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by clauses (5) and (28) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894, in its application to the State of Maharashtra, and of all other powers enabling it in that behalf and in supersession of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the Government of Maharashtra hereby makes the following rules and thereby the rules were amended. Thus, learned APP submitted that, in view of the amended rules, the Petitioner is not entitled for such relief.

¶16

4 . On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Atbir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 13 SCC 96 , and submitted that in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, here also the good conduct of the present Petitioner is apparent from various certificates issued to him, which are already filed on record. The relevant certificate issued to him by Indira Gandhi National Open University and the another certificate issued under Gandhi Vichar Sanskar Pariksha and various certificates shows the good conduct of the present Petitioner. The order passed by the Authorities nowhere discloses any adverse regarding his conduct.

¶17

5 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 31 has observed by referring the various earlier decisions, which reads as under:

¶18

“31.In other words, even if the appellant is to remain in prison for the whole of remainder of his life, the

¶19

3 27.CRI.WP.223-2026.odt

¶20

expectations from him of good conduct in jail would always remain; and the lawful consequences of good conduct, including that of furlough, cannot be denied, particularly when the same has not been prohibited in the order dated 15.11.2012. We need not elaborate to say that depriving of even the concession of furlough and thereby taking away an incentive/motivation for good conduct would not only be counter-productive but would be an antithesis to the reformative approach otherwise running through the scheme of Rules of 2018.”

¶21

6 . It is further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 33, which reads as under:

¶22

“33. Thus, looking to the concept of furlough and the reasons for extending this concession to a prisoner lead us to hold that even if a prisoner like the appellant is not to get any remission in his sentence and has to serve the sentence of imprisonment throughout his natural life, neither the requirements of his maintaining good conduct are whittled down nor the reformative approach and incentive for good conduct cease to exist in his relation. Thus, if he maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied as a matter of course.”

¶23

7 . Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the benefit of good conduct should be extended to the convicts imposed with sentence of imprisonment throughout his natural life.

¶24

8 . This aspect is also considered by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.964/2025 decided on 03.12.2025.

¶25

9 . The Petitioner has applied for furlough leave on the ground that he want to spend quality time with his family members and to meet his family members. It is further

¶26

4 27.CRI.WP.223-2026.odt

¶27

contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, considering his good conduct, his certificates and the reasons given, the said benefit be given to him.

¶28

10 . Thus, it appears that, the Respondents will reconsider the request made by the Petitioner.

¶29

11 . Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to reconsider the request of the Petitioner, in terms of the judgment cited above, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶30

12 . Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶32

SD. Bhimte

¶33

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/04/2026 19:21:04

Shri. Arvind Abhilash Singh v. Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Arvind Abhilash Singh v. Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mrs Maria W/O Cyrus Chang vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Gittikhadan Police Nagpur

Zamkhankap S/O Thangzachin vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Sub Divisional Forest Office Rajura Dist Chandrapur

Vishal S/O Vinod Lanjewar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Service, Pune

Jaya D/O Janardhan Dhokare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps, Anji, Nagpur and Another

Dimple Kamlesh Kanungo vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Investing Officer

Zamkhankap S/O Thangzachin vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Sub Divisional Forest Office Rajura Dist Chandrapur