Bombay High Court
Abdul Hannan Abdulhai Kadri ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 April, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
Cr.WP 505/16
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.505/2016
Abdul Hannan Abdulhai Kadri (C-4288),
at present in
Open Prison, Paithan Dist.Aurangabad.
Through Jail.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.
ig ...Respondent...
.....
Application received through jail.
Shri S.P. Deshmukh, APP for respondent.
.....
CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 18.04.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Borde, J.)
1] Heard learned APP for the respondent.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally at the admission stage.
3] Petitioner, a convict, is undergoing sentence of
life imprisonment and is presently lodged at Open Central
Prison, Paithan since last several years. Petitioner
claims that he has already completed more than 16 years'
imprisonment and that the respondent-authorities have not
Cr.WP 505/16
- 2 -
considered him eligible for the benefit of amended Rule
16 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959,
which has been brought on the Rule book from 23rd April,
2012. Petitioner claims that in accordance with Rule 16
of the Rules, he is entitled to be granted benefit of 14
days extended period of furlough while considering his
claim of remission of sentence.
4] The issue raised in the petition is no more res
integra in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the
matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish,
reported in 2010 AIR (SC) 1690 as well as decision of
Division Bench of this Court at Bombay in Criminal Writ
Petition no.1485/2013 decided on 24th December, 2013. The
Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish (supra) in
paragraph no.43 of the judgment has observed thus :
"The State has to exercise its power of
remission also keeping in view any such benefit
to be construed liberally in favour of a convict
which may depend upon case to case and for that
purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a
policy which, in the instant case, was in favour
of the respondent. In case a liberal policy
prevails on the date of consideration of the
case of a lifer for premature release, he should
be given benefit thereof." {emphasis supplied).
Cr.WP 505/16
- 3 -
In view of judgment of the Apex Court, the State
has to exercise its power of remission by construing it
liberally in favour of the convict. If liberal policy
prevails on the date of consideration of the life convict
for premature release, he should be given benefit
thereof.
5] For the reasons recorded above, we direct that
case of the petitioner be considered for premature
release. Benefit of amended Rule 16 of the rules shall be
given in case of extended period of furlough of 14 days
granted prior to 23rd April, 2012. We, therefore, direct
that while considering the claim of petitioner for grant
of premature release, remission will have to be granted
in terms of the directions specified as above.
6] Rule is accordingly made absolute.
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)
ndk/cr1841623.doc
