Bombay High Court
Ravindra Krishnasinr Prajput vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 August, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 901 OF 2016
Ravindra s/o Krishnasingh Rajput,
Age : Major, Occu. Prisoner
Convict No. 4588, R/o at present
inOpen Prison, Paithan,
District Aurangabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Inspector General
of Prisons,
Maharashtra State,
Pune
3. The Superintendent of Open Prison,
Paithan, District Aurangabad RESPONDENTS
----
Mrs. Bharati B. Gunjal, Advocate (appointed)
for the petitioner
Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondents
----
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 23rd August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S.S. SHINDE, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
2 criwp901-2016
heard finally.
2. This petition is filed seeking directions to
respondent No. 3 to consider the extended period of
furlough granted in favour of the petitioner prior to
23rd April, 2012, as remission.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, during the course of arguments, placed
reliance on the Notification dated 23 rd April, 2012,
issued by the Home Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Mantralaya Mumbai notifying the amended
Rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)
Rules, 1959, which reads thus:-
"16. Furlough to be counted as remission of
sentence. - The furlough period of two weeks
and extended furlough of 14 days shall be
counted as a remission of sentence."
4. The Division Bench of this Court at Principal
Seat, in the case of Jagannath Raghunath Shelke Vs.The
State of Maharashtra and others, in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 1485/2013, decided on 24th December, 2013
3 criwp901-2016
and the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad
Bench, while deciding Criminal Writ Petition No.
211/2014 (Sayyed Shaukat Sayyed Kashim Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others) on 2nd July, 2014, had an
occasion to consider the said amended Rule 16. The
Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents
therein to consider the prayer of the petitioner to
treat the extended period of furlough as remission while
considering the case of the convict for his premature
release, taking recourse to the above mentioned amended
Rule 16. Accordingly, we propose to follow the same
course in the present case.
5. In the light of above, respondent No. 3 is
directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner to
treat the extended period of furlough as remission,
while considering the case of the petitioner for his
premature release, taking into consideration the
aforementioned amended Rule 16 of the Prisons (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Such exercise shall
be completed by respondent No. 3 as expeditiously as
possible; however, within a period of two weeks from
today.
4 criwp901-2016
6. The learned A.P.P. assures this Court that this
order will be communicated to the respondents by fastest
mode of communication through the office of the Public
Prosecutor at High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.
7. Needless to observe that since Smt. Bharati B.
Gunjal, Advocate is appointed in this matter as Amicus
Curiae to prosecute the cause of the petitioner through
the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad,
her fees shall be paid by the said Committee as per the
Schedule of Fees maintained by the said Committee.
8. The Criminal Writ Petition stands allowed and
disposed of in the above terms. The Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/criwp901-2016
