Navnath Uttamrao Jawale vs The State Of Maharashtra
2018 Latest Caselaw 703 Bom

                                                1                                      Cri.WP 1807-2017

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1807 OF 2017


                Navnath Uttamrao Jawale,
                Age Major, Occupation Convict
                No. C/10926, R/o. At Present
                Nashik Road, Central Prison,
                Nashik.                                                   .. Petitioner.

                VS.

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

        2.      The Additional Director General 
                of Police And Inspector General of
                Prison and Maharashtra State,
                Pune -1.

        3.      The Deputy Inspector General of
                Central Prison, Aurangabad.                               .. Respondents

                                          ----

Mr. P. B. Kadam, Advocate (Appointed) for the petitioner. Mr. S. W. Mundhe, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents / State.

----

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ.

DATE : 19-01-2018

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi. J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of

learned counsels for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the

2 Cri.WP 1807-2017

stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is a convict prisoner serving life sentence at

Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. He has spent four years and three

months in the prison. He preferred an application to the respondent

No.3 for grant of furlough leave of 28 days on 10-10-2016. The

application was then transferred through the Superintendent, Nashik

Road Central Prison on 24-11-2016. The application has been rejected

by respondent No.3 on 20-04-2017. After the rejection of the said

application, the petitioner had preferred appeal on 18-08-2017 as per

Rule 17, 4 (6) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules and

as per Rule 4 (B) 11 of Government Resolution dated 26-08-2016.

However, the appellate authority i.e. the respondent No.2 has also

rejected the application. These orders are challenged in this petition.

3. It has been contended that a proper reasons have not been

given by the authorities. The police report in fact in the matter of the

petitioner is favourable to him. The report regarding the conduct of

the petitioner in prison is also not adverse. There is also no adverse

report regarding petitioner being dangerous to the public peace or law

and order. Under such circumstance, the respondent ought not to

have rejected the application and the appeal. The petitioner,

3 Cri.WP 1807-2017

therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders of the

respondents No.2 and 3 and prayed for direction to release him on

furlough leave for two times at once i.e. 28 + 28 days.

4. The petition has been objected on the ground that the

appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending and perusal of the

documents of the petitioner would show that the leave cannot be

granted to him. Reference has also been made that, as per the

decision in Rubina Suleman Memon Vs. The State of Maharashtra,

Criminal Writ Petition No. 4017 of 2016, the furlough cannot be

granted. Proper reasons have been assigned by both the authorities,

and therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to interfere in those

orders.

5. In order to cut short I would like to say that, the learned

counsels appearing for the parties have made submissions in support

of their contentions. Only two grounds have been mentioned for

rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough, one is that the

appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending wherein he has

challenged the conviction awarded to him for the offence punishable

under Section 302, 324, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The

second is that, as per the resolution passed by the State Government

4 Cri.WP 1807-2017

on 26-08-2016, in view of the decision in Rubina Suleman Memon Vs.

The State of Maharashtra case, furlough cannot be granted.

6. Important point to be noted is that, the furlough can be

rejected only in exceptional cases as such if the convict is convicted for

the offence against the State or the offence was under any terrorist

activities act. Here the petitioner has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302, 324, 148 and 148 of the Indian Penal

Code, therefore the resolution and the decision in Rubina's case will

not come in way. So also pendency of the appeal challenging the

conviction of the petitioner is not a ground for rejection of the

furlough leave for the petitioner. No doubt such leave cannot be asked

as of right but definitely there are rules under which such leave can be

claimed. If the authority is intending to reject the application then

proper reasons are required to be assigned. The reasons given by

respondents No.2 and 3 are not at all proper reasons. It is also

required to be seen that, there was no adverse report against the

petitioner indicating that if he is released on furlough leave then it

would be dangerous to the public at large. There is also no adverse

report regarding his conduct in the prison, the police report and jail is

rather in his favour. Under such circumstance, these aspects ought to

5 Cri.WP 1807-2017

have been considered by the respondents No.3 and 2 before rejecting

his application.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition deserve to be

allowed. Rule is therefore made absolute in above terms. The order

passed by respondent No.3 dated 20-04-2017 and the order passed by

respondent No.2 on 18-08-2017 rejecting the application and appeal

filed by the petitioner respectively for his furlough leave are hereby

quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the

petitioner on furlough leave as per rules.

8. The learned appointed counsel Mr. P. B. Kadam for the

petitioner has rendered able assistance to the Court, his fees is

quantified at Rs.3,000/- (three thousand).

         [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]                           [PRASANNA B. VARALE]
                   JUDGE                                                 JUDGE


vjg/-.