Bombay High Court
Gurunath Chandrakant Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 April, 2018
Author: V.K. Tahilramani
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, M.S. Sonak
5. cri wp 3287-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3287 OF 2017
Gurunath Chandrakant Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : APRIL 12, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife on 9.11.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 20.3.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 12.6.2017, hence, this petition.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:26:49 :::
5. cri wp 3287-17.doc
3. One of the main ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole is that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected mainly in view of Rule 4(13) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Rule 4(13) states that prisoners convicted inter alia for dacoity will not be eligible for furlough. Thereafter, by notification dated 26.8.2016, it is stated that those prisoners who cannot be released on furlough would not be eligible to be released on parole. The application of the petitioner is dated 9.11.2016 that is after the said notification, hence, this notification would apply to the case of the petitioner. However, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner would not fall under Rule 4(13) but it would fall under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. Rule 4(2) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 states that the prisoners convicted of the offences under Section 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the IPC are not entitled to be released on furlough. As stated earlier, jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:26:49 :::
5. cri wp 3287-17.doc in view of the notification dated 26.8.2016, rules pertaining to furlough are made applicable to the cases of parole, hence, in view of Rule 4(2), the petitioner would not be eligible to be released on parole. No doubt, the Authorities have wrongly mentioned that Rule 4(13) would apply, however, it makes no difference because in view of Rule 4(2) also, the petitioner could not be released on parole. Looking to all these facts, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.
4. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is lodged in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.
[ M.S. SONAK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:26:49 :::