Bombay High Court
Ravindra Raghunath Jagtap vs The State Of Maharasthra on 16 January, 2018
11. cri wp 3859-15.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3859 OF 2015
Ravindra Raghunath Jagtap .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 16, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that he be
granted furlough. In addition, the petitioner has prayed that
the order of permanently removing him from remission
register be set aside.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
11. cri wp 3859-15.doc
3. As far as prayer for furlough is concerned, the
petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 24.4.2015.
The said application was rejected by order dated 28.8.2015.
The record shows that the application of the petitioner for
furlough came to be rejected on the ground that in the year
2008 when the petitioner was granted furlough, he did not
report back to the prison in time and there was delay of 11
days in reporting back to the prison. On account of this,
remission was cut of 1 day for each day of overstay.
Thereafter, in the year 2008, the petitioner was released on
parole for a period of 30 days, however, the petitioner did
not report back to the prison in time and he unauthorizedly
stayed outside the prison for 331 days. On account of this,
remission was cut of 2 days for each day of overstay.
Thereafter, the petitioner was released on furlough on
19.5.2011 for a period of 14 days. The said period was
extended by another 14 days, however, the petitioner did
not report back to the prison on due date and he absconded.
Ultimately, he had to be traced and arrested by the police
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
11. cri wp 3859-15.doc
and brought back to the prison on 8.8.2013. On this
occasion, there was overstay of 783 days on the part of the
petitioner. On account of this, his name was permanently
removed from remission register. Thus, on the basis of the
conduct of the petitioner, it was apprehended by the
Authorities that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he
will again abscond and will not be available. Looking to the
conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this
apprehension of the authorities is without any basis. Thus,
as far as grant of furlough is concerned, we are not inclined
to interfere.
4. As far as the second prayer regarding the petitioner
being permanently removed from the remission register is
concerned, we have already observed above that in the year
2008, when the petitioner was released on furlough furlough
and thereafter on parole, he did not report back to the prison
in time. Yet the petitioner was released on furlough on
19.5.2011, again he did not report back to the prison in time
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
11. cri wp 3859-15.doc
and there was overstay of 783 days on the part of the
petitioner. The petitioner was required to be arrested and
brought back to the prison by the police.
5. Government circular dated 2.8.2011 relates to the
prisoners reporting late from furlough or parole. Clause 8 of
the circular provides that if a prisoner stays outside the jail
unauthorizedly for a period of six months or more, his
remission shall be cut permanently. As stated earlier, the
petitioner, when released on furlough on 19.5.2011 did not
report back to the prison in time and he had to be arrested
and brought back to the prison after 783 days. Thus, the
case of the petitioner falls under clause 8 of Circular dated
2.8.2011. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is
discharged.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
