11. cri wp 3859-15.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3859 OF 2015
Ravindra Raghunath Jagtap .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 16, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that he be granted furlough. In addition, the petitioner has prayed that the order of permanently removing him from remission register be set aside.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:05:39 :::
11. cri wp 3859-15.doc
3. As far as prayer for furlough is concerned, the petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 24.4.2015. The said application was rejected by order dated 28.8.2015. The record shows that the application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected on the ground that in the year 2008 when the petitioner was granted furlough, he did not report back to the prison in time and there was delay of 11 days in reporting back to the prison. On account of this, remission was cut of 1 day for each day of overstay. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the petitioner was released on parole for a period of 30 days, however, the petitioner did not report back to the prison in time and he unauthorizedly stayed outside the prison for 331 days. On account of this, remission was cut of 2 days for each day of overstay. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on furlough on 19.5.2011 for a period of 14 days. The said period was extended by another 14 days, however, the petitioner did not report back to the prison on due date and he absconded. Ultimately, he had to be traced and arrested by the police jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:05:39 :::
11. cri wp 3859-15.doc and brought back to the prison on 8.8.2013. On this occasion, there was overstay of 783 days on the part of the petitioner. On account of this, his name was permanently removed from remission register. Thus, on the basis of the conduct of the petitioner, it was apprehended by the Authorities that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will again abscond and will not be available. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension of the authorities is without any basis. Thus, as far as grant of furlough is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere.
4. As far as the second prayer regarding the petitioner being permanently removed from the remission register is concerned, we have already observed above that in the year 2008, when the petitioner was released on furlough furlough and thereafter on parole, he did not report back to the prison in time. Yet the petitioner was released on furlough on 19.5.2011, again he did not report back to the prison in time jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:05:39 :::
11. cri wp 3859-15.doc and there was overstay of 783 days on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was required to be arrested and brought back to the prison by the police.
5. Government circular dated 2.8.2011 relates to the prisoners reporting late from furlough or parole. Clause 8 of the circular provides that if a prisoner stays outside the jail unauthorizedly for a period of six months or more, his remission shall be cut permanently. As stated earlier, the petitioner, when released on furlough on 19.5.2011 did not report back to the prison in time and he had to be arrested and brought back to the prison after 783 days. Thus, the case of the petitioner falls under clause 8 of Circular dated 2.8.2011. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:05:39 :::