Bombay High Court
Vinod Damodar Ghogale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 August, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
21. cri wp 2596-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2596 OF 2017
Vinod Damodar Ghogale .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. Omkar G. Nagwekar Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 3, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
13.12.2016. The said application came to be rejected on
22.2.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred
an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated
23.5.2017, hence, this petition.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
21. cri wp 2596-17.doc
3. Mr. Nagwekar, the Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the application of the petitioner for furlough
came to be rejected mainly on the ground that earlier when
he was released on parole, he did not report back to the
prison in time and there was delay of 60 days in reporting
back to the prison. He placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of Arun Shankar Ralmingam Naidu Vs
The State of Maharashtra1. Mr. Nagwekar pointed out
that in the said case also, the application of the prisoner for
parole came to be rejected on the ground that there was
default in surrendering back to the prison on due date. Mr.
Nagwekar placed reliance on the observations made in
paragraph 6 of the said decision wherein it is observed that
Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules,
1959 provided that in case of certain categories of prisoners,
furlough shall not be granted. One of the categories provided
is that furlough shall not be granted to a prisoner who has in
any way defaulted in surrendering himself back at the
appropriate time after release on parole or furlough. It is
1 2013 ALL MR (CRI) 1279 : 2013(3) BCR (Cri) 482.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
21. cri wp 2596-17.doc
further observed that in the Rules, there is no specific
provision made to the effect that a prisoner is disentitled to
parole on the ground that there was delay on his part in
surrendering back to the prison after he was enlarged either
on furlough or on parole.
4. We have carefully perused the above decision. The
decision in the said case was rendered on 31.1.2013. At that
time, the rules pertaining to parole and furlough were
different from the rules which are in existence today. By
Notification dated 26.8.2016, the Prisons (Bombay Furlough
and Parole) Rules have been amended. The new Rules
provide that all prisoners eligible for furlough shall be eligible
for regular parole. In view of the fact that the petitioner had
overstayed for 60 days when he was earlier released on
parole, he would not have been entitled for furlough. Same
rule is now applicable to parole. Thus, this decision would
not be helpful to the petitioner in any manner.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
21. cri wp 2596-17.doc
5. In any event, it may be noted that the petitioner had
overstayed for 60 days when he was earlier released on
parole is not the only ground on which the application for
furlough is rejected. In addition, it is noticed that the
petitioner has been convicted under the MCOC Act and he is
connected to the gang of Ravi Pujari.
6. In view of the above facts, we cannot find any error in
the order of the Authorities rejecting the application of the
petitioner for parole, hence, we are not inclined to interfere.
Rule is discharged.
[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
