Bombay High Court
Kiran Baban Amle vs The Inspector General And ... on 27 September, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 17.crwp.2701.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
W.P.NO. 2701 OF 2017
Kiran Baban Amle , ]
Age 40 years presently undergoing ]
a sentence of life imprisonment ]
at Kolhapur Central Prison, as Convict ]
No. C-6048 ].. Petitioner
Vs.
1) The Inspector General & Director ]
General of Prisons, Old Central ]
Building, 2nd floor, Pune-1 ]
]
2) The Deputy Inspector General ]
(Prisons), Western Region, ]
Yerawada, Pune - 6 ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Santosh S. Musale Advocate for Petitioner
Mrs. G.P.Mulekar A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State. Rule. By consent, rule is made
returnable forthwith and the matter is finally heard.
1 of 4
jdk 2 17.crwp.2701.17.j.doc
2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
5.7.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated
9.12.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred
an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated
25.3.2017, hence, this petition.
3 The application of the petitioner for furlough came to
be rejected on the ground that the concerned police station has
objected to the petitioner being released on furlough. In
addition, it is stated in the order of rejection that relatives of
the deceased are staying in Mumbai and there may be danger
to them if the petitioner is released on furlough. Lastly, it is
stated that when the petitioner was earlier released on parole,
he reported back to the prison after a delay of 30 days. As far
as last ground is concerned, it is seen that there is no doubt
that there was delay of 30 days in reporting back to the prison
by the petitioner, however, it is seen that the petitioner had
preferred an application for extension of parole for a period of
30 days. As the said application was not decided within a
period of 30 days, the petitioner surrendered back to the prison
as soon as the period of 30 days was over. Till the time the
petitioner surrendered as he was not informed that his
2 of 4
jdk 3 17.crwp.2701.17.j.doc
application for extension was rejected, he had the impression
that his application for extension was allowed. The said
application came to be rejected much later by the concerned
authorities. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case,
the petitioner is not entirely to be blamed, hence, this cannot
be said to be a good ground for rejection.
4 As far as the say of the police is concerned, that the
petitioner should not be released on furlough as there may be
danger to the life of relatives of the deceased who reside in
Mumbai, if the petitioner is released on furlough, the rejection
order itself shows that prior to this, the petitioner was released
on parole and during the period that he was on parole, he did
not indulge in any cognizable or non-cognizable offence. It is
further stated in the said order that the petitioner was regularly
attending the police station during the period that he was on
parole. Thus, this shows that there was no threat to the
relatives of the deceased during the period that the petitioner
was released on parole. In this view of the matter, we do not
think that these two grounds are good grounds for rejecting the
application of the petitioner for furlough.
5 The last ground on which the application of the
3 of 4
jdk 4 17.crwp.2701.17.j.doc
petitioner for furlough came to be rejected is that his appeal is
pending before the Court. As far as this ground of rejection is
concerned, it is seen that the application of the petitioner for
furlough is dated 5.7.2016 whereas, it is only in Notification
dated 26.8.2016 that it is stated that prisoners whose appeal
against conviction is pending before the higher Court, shall not
be eligible to be released on furlough. As the application of the
petitioner for furlough is prior to this Notification, this
Notification cannot be retrospectively made applicable to the
application of the petitioner for furlough.
6 In view of the above facts, we set aside the order
rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough as well as
the order in appeal dated 25.3.2017. The petitioner to be
released on furlough on usual terms and conditions set out by
the jail authorities. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI,J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
kandarkar
4 of 4
