Ravindra S/O. Rakhmaji Aware ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9942 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9942 Bom
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2017

Bombay High Court

Ravindra S/O. Rakhmaji Aware ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 December, 2017

Bench: S.S. Shinde

                                                                 cwp1687.17
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1687 OF 2017


 Ravindra s/o Rakhmaji Aware,
 (C-9680) Convict,
 Central Prison, Nashik Road,
 Aurangabad.
                                 ...PETITIONER 

        VERSUS             

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through the Secretary,
    Home Department (Prison),
    Mumbai-400005,

 2) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through I.G.,
    Prisons, Pune,

 3) The Superintendent,
    Central Prison,
    Nashik Road, Nashik.   
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                      ...
    Mr.Rajendra N. Chavan Advocate for Petitioner.
    Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for Respondent
    Nos. 1, 2 & 3.       
                      ...


               CORAM:   S.S. SHINDE AND
                        A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.

cwp1687.17

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 18TH DECEMBER, 2017

DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 21ST DECEMBER, 2017

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

heard finally with the consent of learned counsel

appearing for the parties.

2. This Petition takes exception to the

order dated 26th September, 2017 passed by the

Additional Director General of Police and

Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional

Services, State of Maharashtra, Pune, thereby

rejecting the request of the Petitioner to release

him on furlough.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner herein

that he applied for furlough on 13th February,

2017, however, his application came to be

rejected. The appeal filed by the Petitioner has

cwp1687.17

been rejected by the impugned order dated 26th

September, 2017. In the impugned order passed by

the appellate authority, it is observed that as

the appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging the

conviction and sentence, is pending before the

High Court, in view of the Notification dated 26th

August, 2016 issued by the Home Department, State

of Maharashtra, furlough cannot be granted.

Secondly, furlough cannot be granted to the

Petitioner in view of the order passed by the High

Court in Writ Petition No.4017 of 2016 (Smt.

Rubina Suleman Memon vs. The State of Maharashtra

and others) Thirdly, furlough is not the right

of the convict and fourthly, the Superintendent of

Jail has not recommended the case of the

Petitioner. Accordingly, by invoking the

provisions of Rule 4(11) of the Prisons (Bombay

Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (for short "the

Rules of 1959), the application of the Petitioner

has been rejected.

cwp1687.17

4. There is no denial to the assertion of

the Petitioner that the Petitioner, earlier on

four times was released on parole and furlough,

and on each occasion he reported back to the jail

authorities within time. Learned counsel for the

Petitioner submits that earlier when the

Petitioner was released on parole/furlough, he did

not misuse the liberty granted to him.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner that merely because

appeal filed by the Petitioner against conviction

and sentence is pending, is no ground to deny him

the furlough in view of the orders passed by the

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at

Nagpur, in Criminal Writ Petition No.196 of 2017

and Criminal Writ Petition No.97 of 2017 [Arun s/o

Gulab Gawli and another vs. D.I.G.(Prisons) (East)

Nagpur and another], and Criminal Writ Petition

No.462 of 2017 [Abdul Rajjak Sheikh Abdul Nabi

Shah vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and

cwp1687.17

others]. Learned counsel further submitted that

the ratio in the case of Smt. Rubina Suleman

Memon, supra, is not applicable in the facts of

the present case, as the Petitioner therein was

convict under the Terrorist and Disruptive

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and wife of

brother of Yakub Abdul Razak Menon.

6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State,

referring to the relevant rules submits that, the

prayer of the Petitioner to release him on

furlough has been rightly turned down after

considering the entire earlier record of the

Petitioner. Learned A.P.P. further invites our

attention to the reasons assigned by the

Respondent Authority while rejecting the

application of the Petitioner to release him on

furlough.

7. We have given careful consideration to

the submissions of the learned counsel appearing

cwp1687.17

for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing

for the State. While rejecting the application of

the Petitioner to release him on furlough, the

Respondent Authorities have placed reliance on

Rule 4(11) of the Rules of 1959. Rule 4(11) of the

Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959,

amended as per the Notification dated 26th August,

2016, reads as under:

"(11) Whose appeal in conviction in Higher Court or any other cases filed against them either by Central Government or any of the State Government in any of the Courts are pending and for which bail is not granted to him/her by the related Courts."

8. We have carefully considered the

provisions of Rule 4(11) of the Rules of 1959.

Merely because appeal filed by the Petitioner

challenging his conviction and sentence is pending

before the High Court is no ground to deny the

parole/furlough in view of the orders passed by

the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench

cwp1687.17

at Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No.196 of 2017

and Criminal Writ Petition No.97 of 2017 [Arun s/o

Gulab Gawli and another vs. D.I.G.(Prisons) (East)

Nagpur and another], and Criminal Writ Petition