Bombay High Court
Satish Ramchandra Bavbande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
crwp24116.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2016
Satish Ramchandra Bavbande,
age: major, occ. Nil,
r/o At present Prison,
Khule Jilha Karagruh, Paithan,
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner
VERSUS
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2 The Superintendent of Police,
Khule Jilha Karagruh, Paithan,
District Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr. Suvidh S. Kulkarni, advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the State.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 30th MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per R. M. BORDE, J. )
1 Heard.
2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
3 Petitioner, who is a convict, is undergoing sentence of life
imprisonment and is presently lodged at Open Central Prison,
Paithan, since last seven years. Petitioner claims that he has already
crwp24116.doc
completed substantive period of imprisonment and that the
respondents-authorities have not 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 pre-
mature release, he should be given benefit
thereof." {emphasis supplied).
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.
crwp24116.doc
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 23 rd 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 R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/crwp24116
