Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Damodhar S/O. Pratapram Jangid vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 31 July, 2018

Author: S.S.Shinde

Bench: S.S.Shinde, V.K.Jadhav

                                                            709.18Cri.WP
                                     1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.709 OF 2018 


          Damodhar s/o.Pratapram Jangid, 
          Age: 44 years, Occu: Nil C.No.7858
          R/o. At Gachhi Pura, Tal.Makrana, 
          Dist. Nagor 
          State of Rajasthan 
          At present in Central Prison 
          at Aurangabad.                  .. PETITIONER

                    VERSUS

          1.       The State of Maharashtra 

          2.       Dy. Inspector General,
                   Central Prison, Aurangabad.  

          3.       Additional Director General of 
                   Police and Inspector General of 
                   Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune.  

          4.       The Superintendent of Central Prison, 
                   Aurangabad. 
                                             .. RESPONDENTS 

                                ...
          Mrs.B.B.Gunjal, Advocate for the petitioner 
          Mr.Y.G.Gujarathi,   APP   for   the   Respondent/ 
          State
                                ...

                          CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                  V.K.JADHAV,JJ.      
                                  
                           Reserved on   : 26.07.2018  
                           Pronounced on  : 31.07.2018 




::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2018             ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2018 01:39:35 :::
                                                                    709.18Cri.WP
                                           2



          JUDGMENT:

(Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2] This Petition is filed with the following prayers:
B] By issuing appropriate writ or direction in like nature the order passed by the Respondent No.3 dated 19-01-2018 as per the communication Letter Dated 10-3-2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C] By issuing appropriate writ or direction in like nature the Respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to release the Petitioner on Furlough Leave.
3] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (2-H) and 376 (A) of the Indian Penal Code ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2018 01:39:35 ::: 709.18Cri.WP 3 [for short 'IP Code'] and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years. He filed an application for release him on furlough.

Respondent no.2 rejected the said application. The petitioner approached the Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune, by way of filing application, however, the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IP Code. Hence this Petition. 4] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that merely because the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IP Code, is no ground to reject his application to release him on parole/furlough. She further submits that he was released on furlough on 05.05.2015, and surrendered before the Jail Authority within time i.e. on 03.06.2015. Thereafter, he was released on emergency ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2018 01:39:35 ::: 709.18Cri.WP 4 parole for 9 days, and surrendered before the Jail Authority within time. Thereafter again, he was released on regular parole for 90 days on 24.08.2015, and surrendered before the Jail Authority within time i.e. on 23.11.2015. Then he was released on emergency parole for two times on 27.10.2017 and 02.12.2017 for 9 days i.e. without giving a surety holder itself, and surrendered before the Jail Authority within time. In all 5 times he was released on parole/furlough and at every time he was surrendered before the Jail Authority within time. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the Petition may be allowed.

5] On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State relying upon the averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that the Superintendent of Prisons, Aurangabad Central Region, Aurangabad, did ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2018 01:39:35 ::: 709.18Cri.WP 5 not recommend the case of the petitioner for release him on furlough. It is further submitted that the State Government, by Notification dated 1st December, 2015, made amendment in sub-rule [2] of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons [Bombay Furlough & Parole] Rules, 1959 [for short 'Rules of 1959'], wherein it is provided that convict / convicts of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 377, their applications to release on furlough / parole cannot be considered. Learned APP invites our attention to the aforesaid Notification and submits that the impugned order needs no interference.

6] We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned APP appearing for the respondent-State. With their able assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2018 01:39:35 ::: 709.18Cri.WP 6 thereto, reply filed by the respondents and in particular Notification dated 1st December, 2015, issued by the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. However, it appears that the said Notification was not brought into force by the State Government. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's application to release him on furlough could not have been rejected relying upon the aforesaid Notification. It appears that previously as and when the petitioner was released on furlough / parole; he has reported back to the Jail Authority within time. 7] In that view of the matter, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19th March, 2018. The application filed by the petitioner for furlough stands restored to its original file. We direct respondent nos.2 to 4 to take decision afresh within two weeks from the receipt of this order. The ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2018 01:39:35 ::: 709.18Cri.WP 7 respondent authorities shall not reject the prayer of the petitioner to release him on furlough / parole for the same reasons, which are stated in the impugned order. The respondent authorities to act upon the same police report, which has been already received, without insisting for the fresh report.

8] Rule is made absolute on above terms. Writ Petition stands disposed of. 9] List for compliance of the today's direction / order on 24th August, 2018.

              [V.K.JADHAV]               [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                      JUDGE  
          DDC




::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2018                    ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2018 01:39:35 :::