Harvindarpal @ Delip ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8231 Bom

                                                                780.17WP.odt
                                        1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 780 OF 2017

          Harvindarpal @ Deelip Gurumitsingh 
          Convict No. : C-174, Age : Major, 
          Vasapur Open District Prison
                                          ..PETITIONER
                   VERSUS 

          1.       The State of Maharashtra 
                   Through the Secretary, 
                   Home Department, Mantralaya, 
                   Mumbai - 32. 

          2.       The Inspector General of Prisons
                   Maharashtra State, Pune-1. 

          3.       The Dy. Inspector General 
                   of Prisons 
                   (Central Region), Aurangabad, 
                   M.H. 

          4.       The Superintendent, 
                   Central Prison, Nashik, 
                   Dist. Nashik. 
                                                      ..RESPONDENTS
                                       ...
          Mr. A.B. Jagtap, Advocate for petitioner (appointed) 
          Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent/State
                                ...
                          CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                   MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ. 

RESERVED ON : 09.10.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.10.2017

JUDGMENT : (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

780.17WP.odt

and heard finally with the consent of the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This Petition takes exception to the

order dated 21st March, 2014 passed by

Respondent No.3, thereby rejecting the

application of the petitioner for extension

of furlough leave for a period of 14 days and

further imposition of punishment of

curtailing the remission to the extent of 70

days.

3. The background facts for filing the

present Petition, as disclosed in the memo of

Petition, in brief are as under :-

It is the case of the petitioner

that, the petitioner is a convict for the

offence punishable under section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code and is undergoing sentence

of imprisonment for life. It is the case of

the petitioner that, the petitioner made an

application for furlough leave to the Deputy

780.17WP.odt

Inspector General, Central Region, Aurangabad

and the said furlough leave was sanctioned by

Respondent No.3 for 14 days by order dated

15th February, 2014, and on the basis of the

said order, the present petitioner came to be

released on furlough leave from Visapur Open

District Prison on 3rd March, 2014 for a

period of 14 days. It is the case of the

petitioner that, when he was released on

furlough leave, he was suffering from piles

and due to said sickness, he was advised to

take complete bed rest for one month. As the

period of furlough leave was coming to an

end, the petitioner filed an application on

8th March, 2014 for extension of furlough

leave on the medical grounds, but no decision

was communicated to him, therefore, the

petitioner surrendered back to the Prison

Authority on 1st April, 2014. At that time,

the Prison Authorities informed the

petitioner that, his application for

780.17WP.odt

extension of furlough leave has been

rejected.

4. It is the case of the petitioner

that, thereafter, the petitioner received

show-cause notice on 2nd April, 2014, stating

that, there was 14 days delay on the part of

the petitioner in respect of reporting back

to the prison and therefore, asking the cause

to the petitioner, why his remissions should

not be deducted. Thereafter, on the basis of

the said show-cause notice and order passed

by Respondent No.3 his 70 days remissions

were curtailed. Thereafter, the said order

passed by Respondent No.3 was forwarded to

the District Judge for judicial appraisal and

the same was approved by the learned District

Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge,

Nashik. Hence this Petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for

780.17WP.odt

the petitioner submits that, the punishment

which has been imposed by the Respondent

Authorities curtailing the remissions of the

petitioner is very harsh and is without

considering the genuine reason of medical

treatment of petitioner. Therefore, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

relying upon the grounds taken in the

Petition and annexures thereto, submits that,

the Petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, the learned

A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent - State,

relying upon the affidavit in reply filed by

the Respondent and the reasons assigned by

the Respondent Authority in the impugned

order, submits that, the petitioner had

accepted all the terms and conditions laid

down in the order of furlough leave and the

petitioner has intentionally breached the

conditions laid down in the said order and

780.17WP.odt

hence, the Respondent Authorities have

rightly curtailed the remissions of the

petitioner. Therefore, the learned A.P.P.

submits that, the Petition deserves to be

rejected.

7. We have given careful considerations

to the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent -

State. With their able assistance, we have

perused the grounds taken in the Petition and

the averments made in the affidavit in reply

filed by the Respondent.

8. It is the contention of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner that,

the petitioner attended the Police Station

when he was released on furlough, however, it

is wrongly mentioned in the impugned order

that, during the period when he was released

780.17WP.odt

on furlough he did not attend the Police

Station. Therefore, the said reason is

contrary to the record.

9. Second ground taken by the

petitioner is that, he was suffering from

piles and due to said sickness, he was

advised to take complete bed rest for one

month. So far the said ground is concerned,

there are Medical Officers attached to the

Jail, and therefore, keeping in view the

ailment of the petitioner, in our prima facie

opinion, this ground also cannot be accepted.

10. Third ground taken by the petitioner

is that, though he had applied for extension

of furlough, the decision was not immediately

communicated. Infact on completion of period

for which furlough was granted in favour of

the petitioner, he ought to have reported

back to the Jail. It appears that, the

780.17WP.odt

petitioner when he was released on earlier

occasions on furlough did not report back

within time and overstayed. Therefore, it is

not the case that, this was the first

instance for petitioner to overstay, after he

was granted furlough. As a result of

overstay, the Respondents by invoking the

provisions of Rule 10(5) of the Prisons

(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959

deducted remissions of 70 days for his

overstay of 14 days. There was approval by

the Deputy Inspector General (Prisons),

Central Region, Aurangabad to the order of

deducting the remissions of 70 days and

thereafter, the said deduction/punishment

came to be judicially appraised by the

District and Sessions Judge, Nashik.

11. In our opinion, the order passed by

Respondent No.3 on 21st March, 2014 is in

consonance and keeping in view the record of

780.17WP.odt

the petitioner and relevant Rules. Therefore,

no case is made out for causing interference

in the impugned order. Hence the application

stands rejected. Rule stands discharged

accordingly.

12. We appreciate the sincere efforts

taken by learned counsel Mr. A.B. Jagtap in

promptly preparing the memo of the Petition,

filing the same within time and extending

able assistance during the course of hearing

of the Petition so as to reach to the correct

conclusion. Since Mr. A.B. Jagtap, learned

counsel is appointed to prosecute the cause

of the petitioner, his fees be paid as per

the schedule of fees maintained by the High

Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,

Aurangabad.

              [MANGESH S. PATIL]       [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                    JUDGE  
          SGA