Bombay High Court
Mohd. Sagir Mohd. Bashir Chauhan (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. D.I.G. Prison ... on 8 February, 2021
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
Judgment 1 Cri.W.P.556.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 556 OF 2020
Mohd. Sagir Mohd. Bashir Chauhan,
Convict No.C-2847, Central Prison
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
.... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
through D.I.G. Prison, (East)
Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent of
Central Prison,Amravati,
Dist. Amravati.
.... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri A. Y. Sharma, counsel(appointed) for the petitioner.
Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Additional P.P. for the respondents.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 08.02.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The only ground on which the furlough application of the petitioner has been rejected is that he was an accused in railway bomb- ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 22:35:00 :::
Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.556.2020.odt blast case and therefore, not eligible for being granted furlough as per the conditions No. 4, 6 and 13 of rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules, 1959").
4. We must state it here that out of the above referred three conditions, condition No.13 of rule 4 of the Rules, 1959 is most important. It lays down that a prisoner who is sentenced for offences such as terrorist crimes, mutiny against State, kidnapping for ransom, would not be eligible for furlough till the time, the prisoner has fully undergone the sentence awarded for each or any of these offences.
5. The condition No.4 of rule 4 of the Rules, 1959 is about recommendation by the concerned police station or Police Commissionerate and condition No.6 of rule 4 of the Rules, 1959 is in respect of work and conduct of the prisoners. Naturally, a prisoner who does not qualify condition No.13 would also not qualify for conditions No.4 and 6. But, a prisoner who qualifies for condition No.13, may ordinarily also qualify for conditions No.4 and 6 unless, there is some other material which goes to show that the refusal of the Police Commissionerate or police station to recommend the case of the prisoner is reasonable and not arbitrary or that the work and conduct of the prisoner is otherwise not satisfactory enough. In the present case, there is no material available on record which would show that the work and conduct of the present petitioner is otherwise not ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 22:35:00 ::: Judgment 3 Cri.W.P.556.2020.odt satisfactory. There is also no material to show that the concerned Police Commissionerate or police station has refused to recommend the case of the petitioner for some other strong reason. So, the case of the petitioner would have to be now tested only in the light of the condition No.13 of rule 4 of the Rules, 1959.
6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner, though accused in railway bomb-blast case, was not found guilty and convicted for any offence relating to a terrorist crime or crime of mutiny or crime of sedition against the State. There was no allegations of kidnapping for ransom made against the petitioner either. So, it is clear that prohibition under condition No.13 of rule 4 of the Rules, 1959 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of furlough, as per his entitlement, on the ground that he is a convict for a terrorist crime or crime of mutiny against State.
7. Reply of the respondents shows that there have been several occasions in the past when this petitioner has been released either on furlough or parole. The earliest release of the petitioner on furlough was on 02.12.2005 and the reply shows that thereafter, the petitioner was being released quite regularly. The orders which were passed to release the petitioner on furlough in the past were of the dates of 05.12.2009, 04.02.2012, 30.04.2014, 10.05.2016, 08.02.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 22:35:00 ::: Judgment 4 Cri.W.P.556.2020.odt and 31.01.2018. These orders only fortify the conclusions drawn by us so far.
8. In the result, we find that the petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough, as per the rules. The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough as per his entitlement and on such conditions as may be imposed upon him in accordance with rules.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
Legal remuneration of Rs.2,500/- (Rs. Two Thousand Five Hundred only) be paid to the appointed counsel for the petitioner.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)
Kirtak
::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 22:35:00 :::