Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 1668 Bom

                                          1                 Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)

mnm

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1344 OF 2017
                      (Through Jail)

Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani                               ...Petitioner
Prisoner No.C/3104
Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba,
Kolhapur.
      Vs. 
The State of Maharashtra                                      ...Respondent

Ms. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner 
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the State 

                             CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
                                         M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATED :12TH APRIL, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

1. The Petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 17 th

March, 2016. The said application was rejected by the order dated

18th July, 2016. Being aggrieved thereby the Petitioner preferred an

appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 4th January 2017.

Hence, this Petition.

2. The application of the Petitioner for furlough came to be

2 Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)

rejected firstly on the ground that he has been convicted under

Sections 392 and 395 of the I.P.C. Thus in view of Rule 4(2) of the

Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 furlough cannot

be granted to the Petitioner. Rule 4 states when prisoners shall not

be granted furlough. Rule 4(2) states prisoners convicted of

offences under Sections 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the Indian

Penal Code shall not be granted furlough.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the

Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 302, 392 and 395 of

the I.P.C. She submitted that the Petitioner has undergone the

imprisonment for the offences under Sections 392 and 395 of I.P.C.

Hence, Rule 4(2) would not come in the way of the Petitioner being

granted furlough. As far as this contention is concerned Rule 4(2)

speaks of prisoners "convicted" of the offences under Sections 392

to 402 shall not be granted furlough. It is an admitted fact that the

Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 392 and 395 of I.P.C.

Hence Rule 4(2) would be attracted even if the Petitioner has

undergone the imprisonment for the same. Only if the Petitioner is

acquitted of the said offences, his application can be considered for

3 Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)

grant of furlough. However, such is not the case. Hence, under

Rule 4(2) the Petitioner cannot be granted furlough.

4. The second ground on which the application of the Petitioner

for furlough came to be rejected is that earlier when the Petitioner

was released on furlough in the year 2006 he did not report back to

the prison in time. Ultimately the petitioner had to be traced and

arrested by the Police and brought back to prison. The overstay on

the part of the Petitioner was of 144 days. During the period of

overstay the Petitioner was involved in four other cases which were

either of robbery or dacoity. Hence, it is apprehended that if the

Petitioner is released on furlough he will again indulge in criminal

activities and the Petitioner may abscond and not report to the

prison in time.

5. Looking to the past history of the Petitioner it cannot be said

that the above apprehension is without any basis. Hence, we are

not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Hence Rule is

discharged.

4 Cr.WP.1344/2017(16)

6. Office to communicate this order to the Petitioner who is in

Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)