Rajesh Aglesh Raman vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8876 Bom

                                                                            28.. wp 4078.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.  4078 OF 2017

                 Rajesh Aglesh Raman                                   .. Petitioner
                       Vs.
                 State of Maharashtra and ors.                         .. Respondents

                 Mrs.Harjeet Kaur Bhagwant Singh, for the Petitioner.
                 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP  for State.


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

20th NOVEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough

on 17/03/2016. The said application was granted by order

dated 13/05/2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that

though he was granted furlough by order dated 13/05/2016,

the said order has not been implemented and he has not been

released on furlough.

28.. wp 4078.17.doc

3. Learned APP pointed out that pursuant to the order

dated 31/03/2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition

No. 498 of 2016 preferred by the present petitioner, this Court

granted parole to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, the

petitioner was released on parole from 27/04/2016 for a period

of 30 days. The said period was extended. Thereafter on

27/06/2016, the petitioner reported back to the prison.

Learned APP placed reliance on Rule 5 of the Prisons (Bombay

Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 which is as under :

"5. Furlough not to be granted after return from parole. Ordinarily furlough shall not be granted to a prisoner within a period of six months from the date of his return from parole."

4. Learned APP submitted that in view of this Rule, the

petitioner could not have been released on furlough for 6

months from 27/06/2016. Hence, the petitioner has not been

granted furlough and the order dated 13/05/2016 granting

furlough to the petitioner has been stayed. She submitted that

in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner ought

to prefer a fresh application for furlough which will be

28.. wp 4078.17.doc

considered in accordance with law.

5. The application of the petitioner for furlough dated

17/03/2016 has admittedly been granted by order dated

13/05/2016. No doubt order was kept in abeyance as period of

6 months had not elapsed from the date the petitioner returned

back to the prison from parole. However, as furlough has been

granted to the petitioner and the period of 6 months has already

elapsed from the date the petitioner has returned back to the

prison from parole, we are of the opinion that the said order

should be implemented and pursuant to the said order, the

petitioner should be released on furlough for a period of 28 days

as stated in the order dated 13/05/2016. Accordingly, the

petitioner to be released on furlough for a period of 28 days on

terms and conditions as set out in the order dated 13/05/2016.

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.

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