Bombay High Court
Manoj Parshuram Dhankar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 12.crwp.2872.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2872 OF 2016
Manoj Parshuram Dhankar ]
C / 9982, Presently lodged at ]
Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik ].. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ].. Respondent
....
Ms. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By
consent, matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides.
2 The case of the petitioner is that he had preferred an
application for furlough on 21.5.2013. The said application
1 of 4
jdk 2 12.crwp.2872.16.j.doc
came to be rejected by order dated 3.12.2013. Appeal
preferred against the said order came to be dismissed on
14.3.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1799 of 2014. The said writ petition
was allowed and Rule was made absolute by this Court by
order dated 10.3.2016.
3 The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Writ
Petition has been allowed, he has not yet been released on
furlough. The learned A.P.P. pointed out that the petitioner is
convicted under Section 376 of IPC. In view of Notification
dated 1.12.2015 amendment was made to Rule 4(2) of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. By the said
amendment, Section 376 of IPC was added to Rule 4(2). Rule
4(2) states the cases when prisoners shall not be granted
furlough and 4(2) as it stood amended by Notification dated
1.12.2015, stated that prisoners who are convicted for rape,
would not be granted furlough. The learned A.P.P. submitted
that in view of Notification dated 1.12.2015 the petitioner is not
entitled to be released on furlough. He submitted that when
Writ Petition No. 1799 of 2014 was heard, it was not pointed
2 of 4
jdk 3 12.crwp.2872.16.j.doc
out to the Court that the petitioner was convicted under
Section 376 of IPC and hence, this Court granted the prayer of
the petitioner for furlough.
4 As stated earlier, the application of the petitioner for
furlough is dated 21.5.2013. Amendment to Rule 4(2) came
into effect from 1.12.2015. This Court in the decision dated
5.5.2015 in the case of Santosh Namdeo Bhukan Vs. The
State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3325 of
2014 held that for the purpose of the Prisons (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the relevant date would be
the date of the application for furlough and not the date of
conviction or the date of offence. As the amendment is dated
1.12.2015, the application is prior to that date, hence,
amendment cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. It is
well settled that in Criminal Law, generally, there is no
retrospective effect. As the application of the petitioner was
preferred much prior to the amendment, furlough cannot be
refused to the petitioner on the basis of this amendment which
came into effect on and from 1.12.2015. As the petitioner has
already been ordered to be released on furlough by order
3 of 4
jdk 4 12.crwp.2872.16.j.doc
dated 10.3.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1799 of 2014, the
authorities to comply with that order. Rule is made absolute in
above terms.
5 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner
who is in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
4 of 4
