Bombay High Court
Mohd. Sagir Mohd. Bashir Chauhan ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. D.I.G. ... on 21 January, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
1
wp556.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.556/2020
Mohd. Sagir Mohd. Bashir Chauhan
..Vs..
State of Maharashtra and another
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Shri A.Y. Sharma, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2/ State.
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED :- 21.1.2021.
1. Heard.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking furlough
leave under rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and
Parole) Rules, 1959. As per rule 4(13), a person
convicted for terrorist crimes, mutiny against state,
ransom etc. would not be eligible for furlough leave.
The vires of this rule was questioned and referred for
decision to the Larger Bench in Criminal Writ Petition
No.234/2018. The Larger Bench decided the reference
on 11.10.2018 in terms that as emergency parole was
sought and period of about 11 months had already
expired after the emergency was pressed into service,
the Larger Bench expressed its inclination to grant leave
wp556.2020.odt
to the petitioner to move suitable application afresh as
per law if any occasion therefor subsists and as such, the
leave was granted and finally it was held that the
answer to the question referred being not necessary, the
reference stood disposed of. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, who has produced this order before us, is
requested to place on record the same in two sets and
when he does so, it would be marked as document "A"
for identification.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that
there were 3 petitions moved earlier by this petitioner
and they were Criminal Writ Petition No.27/2012,
Criminal Writ Petition No.223/2015 and Criminal Writ
Petition No.355/2018. He submits that the first criminal
writ petition was decided on 20.1.2012 and jail
authorities were directed to decide the application
seeking furlough leave. That application, it now
transpires, was decided on 4.2.2012 and the petitioner,
at that time, was granted furlough leave. In the second
writ petition above referred to, the petitioner was
directed to be released on furlough leave vide judgment
dated 13.4.2015 In the third one, the petitioner was
directed to be granted furlough leave on 18.9.2018 on
the ground that irrespective of the bar created under
rule 4(13), the petitioner must be granted furlough
leave in view of his earlier releases on furlough. The
copies of these orders passed in the said writ petitions
are placed on record by the learned A.P.P.
wp556.2020.odt
4. We have noticed one of the facts which is most
relevant for deciding the issue involved in this petition.
This fact is about the amendment of rule 4 having been
made on several occasions in the past. Therefore, it
would be necessary for both sides to place on record the
copies of the Rules which prevailed on 20.1.2012,
13.4.2015 and also on 18.9.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the year 2017, Aurangabad Bench had released on
furlough one of the co-accused of petitioner and when
this order was challenged by the State before the Apex
Court, the challenge was dismissed by the Apex Court.
Copy of both these orders be placed on record.
6. Stand over to two weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
