Pratap Tukaram Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 13056 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                                       wp.2527.2021 (J).doc
                Digitally signed by

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                VISHWANATH
  VISHWANATH    SATYANARAYANA
  SATYANARAYANA SHERLA
  SHERLA
                Date: 2021.09.14
                14:33:32 +0530                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2527 OF 2021

                               Pratap Tukaram Godse
                               Convict No.9042, Nashik Central Prison                    ... Petitioner
                               Nashik
                                           Vs.
                               i) The State of Maharashtra

                               ii) The Deputy Inspector General
                               of Prisons, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad            ... Respondents

                               iii) The Superintendent
                               Nashik Central Prison, Nashik

                              Mr.K.I.Khadelwal with Mr.S.A.            Singh    i/b   M/s.Khandelwal
                              Associates for the Petitioner

                              Mr.V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for Respondent - State

                                                         CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
                                                                N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

                                    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: SETPEMBER 6, 2021
                                   JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: SEPTEMBER 14, 2021


                              JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):

1. The petition is filed seeking the following substantive reliefs:

"a) this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 and order dated 08.09.2020;

b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, order or direction ordering and directing the Respondent No.4 to release the Petitioner on furlough leave on usual

wp.2527.2021 (J).doc

terms and conditions and on such additional terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper;

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders

dated 5.3.2020 and 8.9.2020 passed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3

respectively. The petitioner's case is that he was arrested in

relation to C.R. No.82 of 2007 registered with Sakinaka Police

Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 302,

325 and 120 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted bail by

the Sessions Court, Mumbai on 30 th November, 2007. However,

the Crime Branch Unit No.3 reinvestigated the case and invoked

the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and

arrested the petitioner on 20 th May, 2008. Thereafter, the Special

Judge (MCOC) convicted the petitioner in the said case for the

offences punishable under sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of

the MCOC Act and sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment.

Against the said judgment of the Sessions Court, the petitioner

had preferred a Criminal Appeal before this Court, however, the

said Appeal was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the same in

the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Cri.) No.003920 of 2020, which

is pending.

wp.2527.2021 (J).doc

3. On 10th April, 2013, pursuant to his application, the petitioner

was granted parole leave by the competent authority of the prison.

However, the petitioner did not report back to the jail in time.

Therefore, pursuant to a complaint lodged with Bhayandar Police

Station being FIR No.236 of 2013, the petitioner was arrested and

was handed over to the Nashik Central Prison on 14.2.2015.

Thus, the petitioner had jumped parole leave granted to him by

602 days for which a show-cause notice was issued by the prison

authorities and on 4.6.20215, a punishment of indefinite exclusion/

deduction of remission was imposed on the petitioner. Thereafter,

the petitioner filed an application for furlough leave which was

rejected on 11.7.2016. Similar applications made by the petitioner

for furlough leave were rejected on 28.9.2017, 2.4.2019 and

5.3.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ

Petition No.5132 of 2018 in this Court. The said petition was

disposed off by this Court (Coram: B.P. Dharmadhikari & N.R.

Borkar, JJ.) by order dated 21.2.2020 by observing that the orders

imposing the punishments were not made available by the prisoner

(petitioner) and thus, granted liberty to the petitioner to apply again

for leave in accordance with law. Accordingly, a fresh application

was preferred by the petitioner for furlough leave, however, the

wp.2527.2021 (J).doc

said application was rejected on 5.3.2020. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the impugned orders are unjust and arbitrary inasmuch as they are

passed with similar and familiar reasons like the earlier ones that

there is an adverse police report, jumping of parole leave by 602

days, apprehension of jumping the furlough leave, proposed surety

unable to keep control over the activities of the petitioner, etc. He

submitted that although the petitioner had overstayed by 602 days,

there are no incriminating circumstances against the petitioner

during the said overstay. He submitted that for the said period of

602 days, the petitioner has given sufficient and plausible

explanation such as poor financial condition and education of his

younger brother, death of his mother, etc. It is submitted that the

two other cases, which are mentioned in the impugned order, are

the cases in which he was arrested from Nashik Central prison

merely on suspicious grounds. In those two cases, he is already

on bail and till today, no chargesheet is filed. Further, there was no

material on record to substantiate the adverse police report dated

17.2.2020 which is totally vague and based on mere

apprehension. It is submitted by the leaned Counsel that after the

wp.2527.2021 (J).doc

arrest of petitioner on 3.2.2015, he has not been granted any leave

till today. It is further submitted that the apprehension of the

police that there could be danger to the lives of the complainant

and the witnesses, is totally unfounded, unsubstantiated and there

is no material on record to support the same.

5. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgments of

Division Bench in Sharad Keshav Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra

& others reported in 1989 Cr.L.J. 681 and Sherkhan s/o. Mirbaj

Khan Pathan vs. State of Mahanagarpalika (Criminal Writ

Petition No.0071 of 2018 dated 22.2.2018) to contend that

furlough leave is a right of a convicted prisoner, which should not

be denied on the basis of any vague, baseless and

unsubstantiated police reports. The learned Counsel has,

therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and set

aside and the petitioner be released on furlough leave on such

terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper.

6. Mr.Konde-Deshmukh, the learned APP appearing for the

Respondent - State, has opposed the Writ Petition and prayed

that in view of the past conduct of the petitioner and the adverse

police report, the petition needs to be dismissed.

wp.2527.2021 (J).doc

7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the

learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP

appearing for the Respondent - State. With their able

assistance, we have carefully perused the impugned order,

grounds taken in the petition, the annexures thereto and report

received from the jail authority. When the petitioner was released

on furlough in the year 2013 for 28 days, instead of surrendering

before the jail authorities on completion of the aforesaid furlough

period, the petitioner absconded and remained outside the jail for

602 days. The petitioner was required to be arrested and brought

back to the jail. The past conduct of the petitioner in not

surrendering to the jail authorities on completion of furlough leave

granted to him and overstay of about two years and the fact that

he was arrested by the police and brought back to the jail,

disentitles him from seeking any relief from this Court. In addition

to the said reason, it appears that the following cases are pending

against the petitioner:

1) C.C. No.760/PW/2008 in 37th Court, Esplanade

2) C.R. No.236 of 2013 under section 224 of Indian Penal Code

3) C.R. No.467 of 2015 registered with MIDC Police Station pending Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's 22nd Court, Andheri

wp.2527.2021 (J).doc

8. It is also apprehended that the proposed surety suggested

by the petitioner may not be in a position to control the activities of

the petitioner in case of his release on furlough leave.

9. Upon careful perusal of the reasons assigned in the

impugned order, we are of the opinion that the said reasons are

not perverse and are in consonance with the record of the

petitioner.

10. In that view of the matter, we are unable to persuade

ourselves to grant the reliefs as sought by the petitioner. Hence,

the petition is rejected.

      (N.J. JAMADAR, J.)                           (S.S. SHINDE, J.)