Bombay High Court
Shivaji Bhikaji Gawde vs Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 3 August, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 4.crwp.4400.15.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI. W.P.NO. 4400 OF 2015
Shivaji Bhikaji Gawde .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for the Petitioner
Mrs. U.V.Kejriwal A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 03, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, Rule is made
returnable forthwith.
2 The petitioner was released on furlough during the
period from 26.10.2014 to 8.11.2014. The petitioner sought
extension of furlough from 9.11.2014 to 23.11.2014. The said
application for extension of furlough came to be rejected by
order dated 13.5.2015 which is under challenge. The
application was rejected in view of Rule 13 of The Prisons
1 of 5
jdk 2 4.crwp.4400.15.j.doc
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 as the petitioner
was granted extension of furlough from 31.12.2013 to
13.1.2014, hence, it was held that as the extension was
granted in the year 2014, another extension could not have
been granted in view of the Rule 13. Rule 13 states as under:
"13. Extension of the period of furlough-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
foregoing rules, the Sanctioning Authority may, on
the application of a prisoner or otherwise, by an order
in writing extend the period of furlough. *[The
Sanctioning authority may determine the extension of
furlough leave shall be granted for only 14 days only
once in a calender year and no further extension shall
be granted to prisoner on same conditions.]"
3 The case of the petitioner is that he preferred an
application for furlough in the year 2013 and the said
application came to be granted and he was released for the
period from 17.12.2013 to 30.12.2013. He preferred an
application for extension of furlough in December, 2013. The
said application was granted and furlough period was extended
from 31.12.2013 to 13.1.2014. Thus the contention of the
petitioner is that this extension of furlough ought to be counted
2 of 5
jdk 3 4.crwp.4400.15.j.doc
for the year 2013 as he had made an application for extension
of furlough in the year 2013 and the period of extension of
furlough ought to be counted for the year 2013 though it had
spilled over to the year 2014.
4 Rule 13 clearly states that extension of furlough can
be granted only once in a calender year. The record of the
petitioner shows that he had earlier preferred an application for
furlough.
The said application came to be granted and the
petitioner was released on furlough during the period from
12.7.2013 to 25.7.2013. Thereafter the said period of furlough
was extended from 26.7.2013 to 8.8.2013. Thus, it is seen that
in the year 2013 the furlough period was already extended
from 26.7.2013 to 8.8.2013. Thereafter the petitioner
preferred another application for furlough and the petitioner
was released on furlough from 17.12.2013 to 30.12.2013. The
petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough
which was granted and the furlough period was extended from
31.12.2013 to 13.1.2014. This period of extension was held to
be of the year 2014, hence, extension of furlough was granted
to the petitioner. If the period of extension of furlough was
3 of 5
jdk 4 4.crwp.4400.15.j.doc
held to be in the year 2013, the petitioner would not have been
granted extension of furlough because he was already granted
extension of furlough in the year 2013 from 26.7.2013 to
8.8.2013.
5 Thus, it is seen that the petitioner was granted
extension of furlough in the year 2013 and 2014 i.e. from
26.7.2013 to 8.8.2013 and 31.12.2013 to 13.1.2014.
Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for furlough
on 2.6.2014 which was granted by order dated 13.10.2014 and
the petitioner was released on furlough from 26.10.2014 to
8.11.2014. The petitioner sought extension of furlough from
9.11.2014 to 23.11.2014. However, as stated earlier, as the
petitioner was already granted extension of furlough in the
year 2013 as well as in the year 2014, in view of the Rule 13,
in the year 2014 it was not possible to grant second extension
of furlough. This has been clearly stated in the order dated
13.5.2015. The order clearly states that the petitioner was
granted extension of furlough in the year 2013 and in the year
2014 for the period stated above. Thus, it was not possible to
grant second extension of furlough in the year 2014. The
4 of 5
jdk 5 4.crwp.4400.15.j.doc
petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court dated 2.7.2012
in Criminal Writ Petition No. 660 of 2012 in the case of
Prabhakar Raghu Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others. However, on going through the said decision, we find
that the facts therein and the facts in the present case, are
entirely different. Hence, this decision would not be applicable
to the case of the petitioner.
In view of the above facts, no interference is called
for, hence, Rule is discharged.
7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner
who is in Kolhapur Central Prison.
8 Legal fees to be paid to the appointed advocate is
quantified at Rs.2500/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
kandarkar
5 of 5
