Bombay High Court
Rajesh Laxman Datela vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
{1}
14 sr.no..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1121 OF 2016
Rajesh s/o Laxman Datela
Age : 38 years, Occu.: Convict No. 4300,
R/o : At present Open Central Prison Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Inspector General/
Deputy Inspector General of
Prison, Central Prison, Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Office of Superintendent of Police
Open Central Prison, Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 16TH DECEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER S.S. SHINDE,J) :-
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. This petition is filed
with the following substantive prayer :-
B) By issuing writ of mandamus or in like nature
the respondent authorities may kindly be
directed to consider the request of
petitioner and furlough extended period
should be considered as remission in
sentence.
{2}
14 sr.no..odt
2] Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Eknath Bapu
Chougule Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 377 of 2016,,
decided on 31.3.2016 and submits that the issues/points raised in the writ
petition are no longer res-integra and covered by the authoritative
pronouncement of the Division Bench in the case of "Jagannath Raghunath
Shelke Versus The State of Maharashtra & others" in Writ Petition No.
1485 of 2013 decided on 24.1.2013, of which reference is made in para.3 of
the aforesaid judgment.
3] In that view of the matter, he submits that period of 2 weeks of
extended furlough granted in favour of the petitioner deserves to be counted
as remission.
4] Learned APP for the State fairly concedes that the issue raised
in this petition is no more res-integra and covered by the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath Shalke (supra). It is not
necessary for us to enter into greater detail of all the facts of the case.
Suffice it to say that, indisputably, the concerned authority has extended the
period of furlough by 15 days and in view of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath Shelke (supra) the said period
needs to be counted while counting the remission. This Court in the case of
Eknath (supra) in para. 3 has held thus :-
3) The Division Bench of this Court at Bombay
while dealing with Writ Petition No. 1485/2013 in the
matter of Jagannath Raghunath Shelke V. The State
of Maharashtra & others decided on 24.01.2013
issued directions to the respondent authorities that
the petitioner therein be considered for grant of
premature release and the remission shall have to be
granted in terms of the Judgment. It is observed in
paragraph no. 13 of the said judgment that when a
case of life convict is considered for premature
release on or after 23.04.2012, benefit of amended
Rule 16 of the said Rules will have to be given even
{3}
14 sr.no..odt
in case of extended period of furlough of 14 days
granted prior to 23.04.2012."
5] In that view of the matter, in the present case also, the ratio
laid down in the case of Jagannath Shelke is applicable. Consequently, the
extended period of furlough is required to be considered as remission while
reckoning the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner.
6] For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Petition is disposed of.
[K.K.SONAWANE]
ig [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
grt/-
