Bombay High Court
Mansub Ismail Mulani C-5145 vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 13 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31025-DB
Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1450 OF 2025
Mansub Ismail Mulani C/5145
Age: 50 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Serving
Sentence Paithan open prison,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
2) The Superintendent,
Paithan Prison,
District Chh. Sambhajinagar
3) The Deputy Inspector of General of
Prisons Western Region, Aurangabad
Division Chh. Sambhajinagar ... RESPONDENTS
....
Ms Sharda P. Chate, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. P. S. Patil, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.11.2025
JUDGMENT (PER: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of the parties.
1 of 9
(( 2 )) Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh
2. By the present petition, the petitioner takes exception to
the orders dated 19.07.2025 and 19.09.2025, passed by respondent
Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, thereby refused to enlarge the accused on
parole unless he submits surety as per the amended Rule 24(1) of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed in
vehemence that the petitioner was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras, District Solapur in Sessions
Case No.83 of 2004.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 02.05.2012 and he has
been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. The petitioner was
transferred to open prison at respondent No.2 Paithan Prison. The
petitioner has completed more than 12 years of his actual
imprisonment. The behavior of the petitioner being jail inmate is
satisfactory, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for furlough leave.
Therefore, on 12.09.2024, the proposal for furlough leave was
submitted with Respondent No.2 and the copy of same was forwarded
2 of 9
(( 3 )) Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh
to the office of Sub Divisional Police Officer, Barshi, District Solapur,
calling the police report. The police report from the office of Sub-
Divisional Police Officer was received on 24.01.2025. The Respondent
No.2 passed an order on 21-03-2025 and granted furlough leave to
the petitioner on condition that the petitioner should submit one
surety. Initially, the petitioner gave name of his surety holder,
however, during the police inquiry, the said surety holder was refused
to stood as surety, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to give
name of another person as surety, but no one was ready and willing
to accept surety for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner
submitted an application with respondent No.2 on 14.07.2025 and
prayed for release him on his personal bond as well as accepting
minimum cash security. However, on 19-07-2025, the respondent
No.2 passed an order and rejected the said application. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before
respondent No.3. On 19.09.2025, the respondent No.3 passed the
impugned order and confirmed the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by
respondent No.2.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
canvassed that the petitioner submitted an application for furlough
3 of 9
(( 4 )) Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh
leave on 16.04.2018. Proviso 10 of Rule 6 of Bombay Furlough and
Parole Rules, 1959 provides that the convict who confined in an open
prison, is entitled to release on parole / furlough leave on executing
his personal bond or furnishing cash security and it is not required to
furnish the suerty for grant of 28 days furlough leave, however, the
Respondent no. 2 & 3 relied on amended Rule 24 and wrongly
rejected the application, hence, prayed for quash and set aside both
the orders.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the convict petitioner
further canvassed that for grant of 28 days furlough leave, on
execution of personal bond is permissible as no one is ready and
willing to stood as a surety for the petitioner. As per the provisions of
Rule 8(5), 10, 11 and 12 'mutatis mutandis' shall apply in this case. In
support of this submission, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied on the case of Dipak Sudhakar Wakalekar Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others, 2011 Cri. L.J. 3263, wherein the Full
Bench of this Court has held that, the convict confined in an open
prison, can be released on parole or furlough on execution of his
personal bond.
4 of 9
(( 5 )) Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh
7. It further relied on the case of Natia Jira Vs. State of
Gujarat, 1984 Cri. L. J. 936, wherein it has been held that where a
prisoner is not able to give surety or relatives, the authorities have the
discretion to accept personal bond submitted by the convict and
release him on furlough leave. It further relied on the judgment
dated 09.08.2024, passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition
No.1241 of 2024 (Tushar Dnyaneshwar Chavan C/9922 Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and others), the petitioner was held entitled to get
furlough leave upon furnishing personal bond as well as by giving
cash security.
8. Per contra the learned APP strongly opposed the
application on the ground that as per the amended Rule 24(1) of the
Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough And Parole) Rules, 2024, came into
force with effect from 02.12.2024, unless the prisoner furnish surety,
he cannot be granted furlough leave. Therefore, the impugned orders
passed by the competent authorities, are just and proper and no
propriety lies in favour of the prisoner. It is further canvassed that if
the petitioner is not making surety available, his application for
furlough, cannot be granted in view of Rule 4(4) of the Maharashtra
5 of 9
(( 6 )) Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh
Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Hence, prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions canvassed on
behalf of both the sides, we have gone through the petition paper
book. Indeed, on 16.04.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Malshiras, District Solapur, passed the judgment and order in
Criminal Sessions Case No.83 of 2004 arising out of Crime No.06 of
2004 registered with Velapur Police Station and convicted the
petitioner accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment. It is a matter of record that the petitioner undergone
imprisonment of 12 years 5 months and 22 days as on 19.09.2025.
No doubt, on 12.09.2024, the petitioner submitted an application and
prayed for grant of furlough leave. Thereafter, on 24.02.2025, the
Sub Divisional Police Officer, Barshi, submitted it's report and
disclosing that one Mr. Ali Husain Sattar Shaikh, whose name was
given by the petitioner as his surety holder but said surety holder not
having proper and compleat documentation. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted a request letter on 14.07.2025 with the
respondent authorities and prayed for releasing him on furlough
6 of 9
(( 7 )) Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh
leave by accepting P. R. bond and cash security. However, the said
application came to be turned down on 19.07.2025 and confirmed
the order on 19.09.2025 by respondent No.2.
10. Needless to say that as per Rule 6 of the Maharashtra
Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the relatives of
the prisoner is required to furnish surety bond in Form 'A' for such
amount as may be fixed by the sanctioning authority and who is
willing to receive the prisoner while on furlough. Rule 10 of the 1959
Rules, invoices that the sanctioning authority shall grant furlough to
the prisoner subject to his executing personal bond or giving cash
security contemplated in Form 'C' and also subject to the surety
executing the bond in Form 'A' appended to these rules, if so required.
11. In the case of Bhikhabbai Devshi Vs. State of Gujarat
and1 Ors., AIR 1987 Guj 136, the Full Bench of Gujarat High Court
discussed the aims and object of the Prison (Furlough And Parole)
Rules, 1959, and observed as under:-
(i) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family
life and deal with the family matters;
(ii) to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison
life;
7 of 9
(( 8 )) Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh
(iii) to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and
active interests in life.
12. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pralhad
Gajbhiye Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 1994, Mh. L. J. 1584,
held that the principle object of grant of furlough is to enable the
prisoner to have family association and to avoid ill-effects of
continuous prison life.
13. In the case in hand, on 19.07.2025, the respondent No.2
passed the order and denied furlough leave facility to the petitioner
on the account that no one is ready and willing to stood his surety for
the petitioner. On 19.09.2025, respondent No.3 passed the impugned
order and denied furlough leave facility to the petitioner on the
ground that no one is ready and willing to stood as surety to the
petitioner as per amended Rule 24(1) of the Maharashtra Prison
(Furlough And Parole) Rules, 2024, which came into force with effect
from 02.12.2024. Since, the application for furlough leave submitted
by the petitioner on 12.09.2024 and on the day of application for
furlough amended provision of Rule 24(1) were not in existence and
said provisions came into force with effect from 02.12.2024,
therefore, the said Rules cannot made applicable to the petitioner
8 of 9
(( 9 )) Cri-WP-1450-2025--Furlogh
with retrospective effect. Therefore, considering the law laid down in
the case of Dipak Sudhakar Wakalekar and in the case of Pralhad
Gajbhiye (supra), the petitioner is entitled for 28 days furlough leave
on furnishing his personal bond in Form 'B' and cash security bond of
Rs.5,000/- in Form 'C' appended in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough
And Parole) Rules, 1959. With these observations, the impugned
order dated 19.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated
19.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3, need to be quashed and set
aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders dated 19.07.2025 and 19.09.2025
passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, are
hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Respondent no.2 is hereby directed to release the
petitioner/inmate on furlough leave for 28 days on
furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- in Form 'B'
and cash security bond of Rs.5,000/- in Form 'C'
appended to the Prisons (Bombay Furlough And Parole)
Rules, 1959.
(iv) Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(v) No order as to cost.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ]
SMS
9 of 9
