Bombay High Court
Mohammad Ali Ismail Aamdare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2019
Author: S.S. Shinde
Bench: S.S. Shinde, R.G. Avachat
cwp761.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.761 OF 2017
Mohammad Ali Ismail Aamdare,
Prisoner No.C-3021,
Nashik Road Central Prison,
Tq. & Dist-Nashik.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Home Affairs,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,
2) The Deputy Inspector General of Jail,
Central Division, Aurangabad,
3) The Superintendent of Jail,
Nashik Road, Central Jail,
Tq. & Dist-Nashik,
4) The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.G.R. Syed Advocate appointed for
Petitioner.
Mr.V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4.
...
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 :::
cwp761.17
2
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER: 28TH FEBRUARY, 2019 ORDER [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:
1. This Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, praying therein to quash and set aside the order dated 20th December, 2016, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Jail, Central Division, Aurangabad, thereby refusing to release the Petitioner on furlough, and to release the Petitioner on furlough.
2. By order dated 10th November, 2017, this Court rejected the Writ Petition thereby rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to release him on furlough, as earlier when the Petitioner was released on furlough, he illegally overstayed for the period of eight years.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 :::
cwp761.17 3
3. However, as the Petitioner made allegations in the Petition that, some of the similarly placed convicts, though overstayed illegally for number of years when they were released on furlough/parole ranging from 2 to 11 years, they were subsequently released on furlough/parole, therefore, on the said aspect, this Petition was kept pending. Para-5 of the order dated 10th November, 2017, passed by this Court, reads thus:
"5] Though we have rejected the prayer of the petitioner to release him on furlough, nevertheless the averments in the application filed by the petitioner, addressed to the Chief Justice wherein it is stated that following convicts, though overstayed illegally for number of years when they were released on Furlough/Parole ranging from 2 to 11 years, they were ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 ::: cwp761.17 4 released subsequently on Furlough/Parole by the State Government.
1]C-6505 Nandkumar Haribhau Munde -2 years overstayed 2]C-5090 Raghunath Haribhau Sanap -3 years overstayed 3]C-6325 Satish Shankar Shinde -3 years overstayed 4]C-6439 Vasudeo Vana Choudhari -4 years overstayed 5]C-6447 Dhqanraj Tanhu Manhate -5 years overstayed 6]C-3914 Tulshiram Laxman Birajdar -7 years overstayed 7]C-6903 Vyankat Govind Vyanjane -8 years overstayed 8]C-3413 Shaikh Amin Sk. Bapuji Patel -9 years overstayed 9]C-3410 Kundlik Bhanudas Gaval -11 years overstayed 10]C-4894 Uddhav Sitaram Naiknavre -10 years overstayed We direct the Secretary, Department of Home (Prisons) to cause the enquiry in respect of aforementioned convicts i.e. when they were released on Furlough or Parole as the case may be, when they reported back to jail and even though they overstayed illegally for years together. The Secretary shall summon the record in respect of each convict whose names have been mentioned hereinabove and after necessary inquiry, file his report within four weeks from today. List under caption "for Compliance", S.O. to 18/12/2017. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order."
4. In pursuance of the said order, on 17 th January, 2018, affidavit in reply came to be filed ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 ::: cwp761.17 5 on behalf of Respondent No.1, annexing the chart stating information about the parole/furlough granted to five prisoners, namely, Vasudeo Vana Choudhari, Tulshiram Laxman Birajdar, Vyankat Govind Vyanjane, Shaikh Amin Shaikh Bapuji Patel and Kundalik Bhanudas Gavad. The chart annexed with the said affidavit shows that Convict - Vasudeo Vana Chaudhary was released on parole on 6th September, 2005, and he was supposed to report back to the jail authorities on 7th October, 2005, but he did not report back in time and thereafter he was arrested by the police on 23rd September, 2008, and accordingly he illegally overstayed for 1082 days. Still, on 6th December, 2010, the said convict was released on parole for three months. It appears that, thereafter also the said convict
- Vasudeo was released on parole/furlough on 10 occasions. So far as another convict - Tulashiram Laxman Birajdar is concerned, he was released on parole on 27th June, 1996, and he was supposed to ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 ::: cwp761.17 6 report back to the jail authorities on 25th July, 1996, but he did not report back in time and thereafter he was required to be arrested by the police on 10th March, 2002, and accordingly he illegally overstayed for 2024 days. Still, the said convict Tulashiram was released on furlough on 5th April, 2007, and thereafter also he was released on parole/furlough on many occasions. So far as Convict - Vyankat Govind Vyanjane is concerned, he was released on parole on 15 th November, 1995, and he was supposed to report back to the jail authorities on 16 th December, 1995, but he did not report back in time and thereafter he was required to be arrested by the police on 27 th February, 2003, and accordingly he illegally overstayed for 2652 days. Still, the said convict Vyankat was released on furlough on 14 th April, 2007, and thereafter also he was released on parole/furlough on many occasions. ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 :::
cwp761.17 7
5. So far as Convict Shaikh Amin Shaikh Bapuji is concerned, he was released on parole on 21st September, 1995, and he was supposed to report back to the jail authorities on 22nd October, 1995, but he did not report back in time and thereafter he was required to be arrested by the police on 5th May, 2004, and accordingly he illegally overstayed for 3118 days. Still, the said convict Shaikh Amin was released on parole on 7th August, 2007, and thereafter also he was released on parole/furlough on 12 occasions. So far as Convict Pundalik Bhanudas Gavhad is concerned, he was released on parole on 10 th August, 1995, and he was supposed to report back to the jail authorities on 10th September, 1995, but he did not report back in time and thereafter he was required to be arrested by the police on 1 st August, 2006, and accordingly he illegally overstayed for 3936 days. Still, the said convict Pundalik was released on furlough on 10th November, ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 ::: cwp761.17 8 2009, and thereafter also he was released on parole/furlough on 13 occasions.
6. We have also carefully perused the original record placed before us in two closed envelopes on behalf of the Respondents, containing original Files maintained by the Respondent authorities regarding parole/furlough leave in respect of Convicts, namely, Uddhav Sitaram Naiknavre, Satish Shankarrao Shinde, Raghunath Haribhau Sanap and Dhanraj Tanhu Marathe, and other convicts namely, Vasudeo Vana Chaudhari, Shaikh Amin Shaikh Bapu, Pundlik Bhanudas Gavad, Vyankat Govind Vyanjane, Tulshidas Laxman Birajdar and Nandukumar Shivmurti Mundhe.
7. Along with the additional affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 on 29 th January, 2018, another chart has been submitted stating the information about parole/furlough granted to four ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 ::: cwp761.17 9 prisoners, namely, Raghunath Haribhau Sanap, Satish Shankar Shinde, Dhanraj Tanhu Marathe and Uddhav Sitaram Naiknavre. The chart annexed with the said affidavit shows that Convict - Rangnath Haribhau Sanap was released on furlough on 25 th April, 2001, and he was supposed to report back to the jail authorities on 10th May, 2001, but he did not report back in time and thereafter he was required to be arrested by the police on 14th September, 2003, and accordingly he illegally overstayed for 857 days. Still, on 28 th June, 2005, the said convict was released on parole for thirty days, and that time also he reported late by 30 days. It appears that, thereafter also the said convict - Raghunath was released on parole/furlough on 7 occasions. So far as another convict - Satish Shankar Shinde is concerned, he was released on parole on 3 rd October, 2006, and he was supposed to report back to the jail authorities on 2nd January, 2007, but he did not ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 ::: cwp761.17 10 report back in time and thereafter he was required to be arrested by the police on 14 th March, 2009, and accordingly he illegally overstayed for 802 days. Still, the said convict Satish was released on parole on 1st July, 2010, and thereafter also he was released on parole/furlough on 2 occasions.
8. So far as another convict - Dhanraj Tanhu Marathe is concerned, he was released on furlough on 2nd December, 1999, and he was supposed to report back to the jail authorities on 17th December, 1999, but he did not report back in time and thereafter he was required to be arrested by the police on 14th December, 2003, and accordingly he illegally overstayed for 1457 days. Still, the said convict Dhanraj was released on parole on 4 th June, 2006, and thereafter also he was released on parole/furlough from time to time. So far as another convict - Uddhav Sitaram Naiknavre is concerned, he was released on parole on 15 th ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 ::: cwp761.17 11 February, 2012, and he was supposed to report back to the jail authorities on 16th May, 2012, but he reported late by 3 days. Again the said convict Uddhav was released on furlough on 11th January, 2013, and that time also he reported late by 33 days, and thereafter also he was also released on parole/furlough and on most of the occasions, he reported late to the jail authorities.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents, referring to the reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, necessary enquiry has been conducted by the Respondent authorities and appropriate punishment has been imposed upon eight prisoners, for the prison offence, and the directions given by this Court have been duly complied with.
10. From the perusal of the above stated ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 ::: cwp761.17 12 details regarding the release of other convicts on parole/furlough, prima facie it appears that there is an element of arbitrariness on the part of the Respondent Authorities in dealing the cases of those convicts vis-a-vis the Petitioner. We direct that, henceforth the State Government and its officials shall take care and precaution so as to adhere to the relevant rules, regulations and procedure, and shall not give any occasion for arbitrary exercise of powers, while dealing with the prayers of the convicts for release on parole/furlough.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/FEB19 ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 13:16:20 :::