Zuber Mohd. Kasam Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 13751 Bom

                                                                                   62-wp-3296-2021.doc




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.3296 OF 2021

VISHAL                Zuber Mohd. Kasam Shaikh                              ...Petitioner
SUBHASH                          vs.
PAREKAR               The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                     ...Respondents
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date: 2021.09.24
                      Mr. N.N. Gawankar i/b. Mr. Manas Gawankar for the Petitioner.
14:31:58 +0530
                      Mrs. A.S. Pai, PP for the Respondent-State.

                                          CORAM :        S. S. SHINDE &
                                                         N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
                                         DATE :          SEPTEMBER 23, 2021


                      ORAL JUDGMENT (Per N.J.Jamadar,J.)

                      .        Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and having regard to

                      the nature of prayer in the petition, heard fnally.



                      2.       Heard Mr. Gawankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

                      Mrs. Pai, learned PP for the respondent-State.



                      3.       The substantive prayer in this petition is to extend the

                      period of furlough, on which the petitioner was ordered to be

                      released by this Court by judgment and order dated 3 rd August,

                      2021, in Writ Petition No. 200 of 2021.



                      4.       The substance of the petition is that pursuant to the

                      Vishal Parekar                                                             1/4
                                                           62-wp-3296-2021.doc




judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2021 passed by this Court

the authorities have released the petitioner on furlough by order

dated 8th September, 2021. The petitioner seeks extension of the

period of furlough as the mother of the petitioner is unwell and

has been hospitalized.



5.       Mr. Gawankar, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge

that the petitioner can not avail furlough or parole for a period of

six months once he surrenders, in compliance with the order

dated 8th September, 2021. He prays that the period of release on

furlough be thus extended.



6.       In opposition to this Mrs. Pai, learned PP invited our

attention to the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and

Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 whereby Rule 13, which

provided for extension of the period of furlough, had since been

deleted. Mrs. Pai, learned PP thus urged that under the extant

rules there is no provision for extension of the period of furlough

and thus the petition is not tenable.



7.       On facts, Mrs. Pai, invited our attention to the medical


Vishal Parekar                                                          2/4
                                                            62-wp-3296-2021.doc




papers in respect of the mother of the petitioner. It was urged that

she has been admitted in the hospital yesterday only. The

petitioner has fve brothers and two sisters and they can very well

take care of the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no

justifcation to extend the period of furlough.



8.       While directing the release of the petitioner on furlough by

the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2021, we had noted that

the petitioner had undergone 16 years and 6 months actual

imprisonment. There is not a single penalty or prison offence to

the credit of the convict. Having regard to the entire gamut of the

facts and circumstances, this Court was persuaded to direct the

release of the petitioner on furlough.



9.       Indisputably, Rule 13 of the Rules, 1959, which enabled the

authorities to extend the period of furlough, has since been

deleted. However, under the rules, furlough can be granted for a

maximum period of 28 days, in a year. Since this Court has

directed the release of the petitioner on furlough for a period of 14

days, we do not fnd that the deletion of rule 13 would be an

impediment in extension of the period of furlough by this Court.


Vishal Parekar                                                           3/4
                                                              62-wp-3296-2021.doc




The object behind the release of a convict on furlough cannot be

lost sight of.



10.      The petitioner had been incarcerated for more than 16 years.

Indisputably the mother of the petitioner is hospitalized. In the

totality of the circumstance and in the peculiar facts of the case,

we are of the view that it would be expedient in the interest of

justice to extend the period of furlough by 14 days. We are thus

inclined to allow the petition.

         Hence, the following order.

                                   ORDER

1]       The petition stands allowed.

2]       The period of furlough of the petitioner stands extended by

14 days to be computed from today.

3]       The release of the petitioner on furlough shall be subject to

the conditions imposed by this Court in the order dated 3 rd

August, 2021, and the competent authority by order dated 8 th

September, 2021.

4] Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.

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



Vishal Parekar                                                             4/4