Bombay High Court
Ganpat Bapu Salunkhe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
3. cri wp 433-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2016
Ganpat Bapu Salunkhe .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
5.1.2015. The said application was rejected by order dated
27.4.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred
an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated
12.8.2015, hence, this petition.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
3. cri wp 433-16.doc
3. The contention of the petitioner is that furlough is a
right granted to the petitioner and hence, his application for
furlough ought to have been granted. As far as this
contention is concerned, this Court in the case of Santosh
Namdeo Bhukan Vs The State of Maharashtra 1 has
held that release on furlough cannot be said to be an
absolute right of the prisoner. The Supreme Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Pandurang
Darvakar2 has observed thus:-
"5. ........................ But release on furlough cannot be said to
be an absolute right of the prisoner as culled out from Rule 17. It
is subject to the conditions mentioned in Rule 4(4) and 6.
..................... Since the furlough is granted for no particular
reason, it can be denied in the interest of society.
Rule 17 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
reads as under:-
" 17. Nothing in these rules shall be construed as conferring a
legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough."
1 Cri. W.P. No. 3325 of 2014 decided on 5.5.2016 [ Coram : V.K. Tahilramani & Anuja
Prabhudessai, JJ. ]
2 AIR 2006 SC 2471 : 2006 ALL M.R. (Cri) 1839 (S.C.)
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
3. cri wp 433-16.doc
Thus, in view of above, release on furlough cannot be
said to be an absolute right of the prisoner.
4. The second grievances of the petitioner is that no
reasons were given for rejecting his application for furlough.
However, this ground is without any basis because the
rejection order dated 27.4.2015 which has been annexed to
the petition as Ex. A clearly shows that the reasons have
been set out for rejecting the application of the petitioner for
furlough. One of the main reasons is that in the year 2014,
when the petitioner was released on parole, he did not report
back to the prison in time. Ultimately, he had to be traced
and arrested by the police and brought back to prison. There
was overstay of 170 days on the part of the petitioner.
Moreover, it is seen that the petitioner has not surrendered
on his own but he was required to be arrested by the police
and brought back to the prison. In view of the fact that on
earlier occasion, when the petitioner was released on parole,
he did not report back in time, it was apprehended that if the
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
3. cri wp 433-16.doc
petitioner is released on furlough, he will not report back to
the prison in time and he may abscond. Looking to the past
conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this
apprehension is without any basis. In this view of the
matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.
[ A.M. BADAR, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
