Bombay High Court
Dada @ Pravin Satish Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 April, 2018
Author: V.K.Tahilramani
Bench: V.K.Tahilramani
jdk 1 11.crwp.1557.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1557 OF 2017
C/16509 Dada alias Pravin Satish
Pawar, B-Yard, Yerawada Central Prison,
Pune-6 .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.
AND M.S.SONAK, J.
DATED : APRIL 23, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :[PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, ACJ, ]:
1 Heard both sides. 2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
12.10.2015. The said application was rejected by order dated 12.4.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:08:45 ::: jdk 2 11.crwp.1557.17.j.doc 23.8.2016, hence, this petition.
3 The application of the petitioner came to be mainly rejected on the ground that his case falls under clause 14(10) and 4(13) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. As far as sub-clause (10) is concerned, the learned A.P.P. stated that the case of the petitioner fell under sub- clause (10) as in 2013 when the petitioner was granted parole, he did not surrender back in time and there was delay of two days. As far as sub-clause (13) is concerned, the learned A.P.P. pointed out that the petitioner has been convicted in a case under Section 364 of IPC, hence, sub-clause (13) is attracted. She submitted that these are the main reasons that furlough was not granted to the petitioner.
4 As far as sub-clause (10) is concerned, it is seen that no doubt there was delay of two days in surrendering back to the prison on the part of the petitioner, however, it is be noted that the petitioner was not arrested by the police and brought back to the prison, but he reported back to the prison on his own though after a delay of 2 days, hence, we are of the 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:08:45 ::: jdk 3 11.crwp.1557.17.j.doc opinion that it is not a serious enough ground to reject the application of the petitioner for furlough. 5 As far as sub-clause (13) is concerned, sub-clause (13) as it stood at the time of rejection of the application of the petitioner for furlough, was that if a person was convicted for an offence of kidnapping, he was not eligible to be granted furlough. This is pursuant to the Notification dated 23.3.2012. However, Ms. Dandekar pointed out that the Government has reconsidered the entire Rules relating to parole and furlough and as per the new Notification which is dated 16.4.2018, the conviction for an offence of kidnapping simplicitor would not make a prisoner ineligible to be granted furlough. She further pointed out that as per the new Notification only if it is a case of kidnapping for ransom which falls under Section 364-A of IPC, only then the prisoner would be ineligible to be granted furlough. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been convicted under Section 364-A of IPC but he has been convicted only under Section 364 of IPC. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders dated 12.4.2016 and 23.8.2016. The authorities to consider the application of the petitioner dated 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:08:45 ::: jdk 4 11.crwp.1557.17.j.doc 12.10.2015 for furlough afresh and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 6 Petition is allowed and Rule made absolute in above terms.
7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.
M.S.SONAK, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
kandarkar
4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:08:45 :::