Keshavrao Tukaram Pawar C-7085 vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 5720 Bom

                                                                            crwp986.16
                                          -1-




                                                                             
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                     
                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 986 OF 2016



     Keshavrao s/o Tukaram Pawar




                                                    
     (C-7085) (Convict)
     Central prison, Aurangabad                               ...Petitioner

              versus




                                         
     1.       The State of Maharashtra
              Through I.G.   
              Prisons, Pune

     2.       The State of Maharashtra,
              Through D.I.G.
                            
              Prisons, Aurangabad

     3.       The Superintendent,
              Central Prison,
              Aurangabad                                      ...Respondents
      


                                          .....
   



     Mr. R.A. Jaiswal, advocate for the petitioner (appointed)
     Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for the respondents
                                          .....





                                                CORAM : S. S. SHINDE AND
                                                        V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

DATED: 29th SEPTEMBER, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT( PER S.S. SHINDE, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard

finally.

2. The petitioner is convict for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of I.P.C. and undergoing the imprisonment for life in

crwp986.16

Central Prison, Aurangabad. The petitioner had applied for furlough

leave on 17.12.2015. Respondent No.2 rejected the said application.

The petitioner had filed appeal before respondent No.1. However, the

same also came to be rejected on 18.6.2016. Hence, this writ

petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that, on

earlier two occasions, when the petitioner was released on furlough

leave, he overstayed for 329 days in the year 2012 and 170 days in

the year 2014, however, respondent State has punished him by

removing his name from remission register. Learned counsel

submits that the petitioner was released on parole leave from

05.05.2015 to 4.8.2015 i.e. for 90 days and he surrendered within

time. Therefore, he submits that his application for furlough leave

should not have been rejected by the respondents.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the respondents submits

that on earlier two occasions, when the petitioner was released on

furlough leave, he overstayed for 329 days in the year 2012 and 170

days in the year 2014. He was arrested and then again was lodged

in jail. The conduct of the petitioner does not entitle to seek any relief

from this Court. However, learned A.P.P. concedes that petitioner

was released on parole from 05.05.2015 to 04.8.2015 for 90 days

crwp986.16

and he surrendered within time.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing of the petitioner

as well as learned A.P.P. for the respondents. We have perused the

averments made in the petition, annexures thereto and the affidavit in

reply filed by the respondents, more particularly Exh. R-5, pages 29

and 30 wherein details are mentioned about furlough/parole leave

granted to the petitioner on earlier occasions and by how many days

he surrendered late and for which the action was taken by the

respondents.

6. The fact that the petitioner is already punished for his

overstayed period by removing his name from remission register, he

cannot be punished twice. The another facts that petitioner was

released on parole leave from 05.05.2015 to 4.8.2015 i.e. for 90 days

and he surrendered within time is also not disputed. Therefore, in

the facts and circumstances of this case, ends of justice would meet

in case the respondents are directed to reconsider the prayer of the

petitioner for releasing him on furlough leave.

7. In view of above, we direct respondent No.2 to reconsider the

prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on furlough leave, in

accordance with law, after verifying the record. The prayer shall not

crwp986.16

be rejected on the ground that on earlier two occasions when the

petitioner was released on furlough leave, he surrendered late.

Respondent No.2 to take decision afresh, as expeditiously as

possible, however, within two weeks from today and communicate

the said decision to the petitioner.

8. With the above observations, writ petition is partly allowed and

the same is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

9. Registry to issue authenticated copy of this order/judgment to

the requesting party.

10. Since Mr. R.A. Jaiswal, advocate, is appointed as amicus

curiae to prosecute the cause of the petitioner, his legal fees be paid

as per the schedule maintained by the High Court, Legal Services

Sub Committee, Aurangabad.

          ( V. K. JADHAV, J.)                            ( S. S. SHINDE, J. )

     rlj/