Bombay High Court
Sunil Gaurishankar Kharwar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 August, 2018
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
9. cri wp 3132-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3132 OF 2017
Sunil Gaurishankar Kharwar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. SONAK, J.
Digitally signed
by Ravindra
Ravindra Mohan
Amberkar
DATE : AUGUST 7, 2018.
Mohan Date:
Amberkar 2018.08.07
18:04:13
+0530
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 4.7.2015. The said application was rejected by order dated 15.10.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred appeal. The appeal came to dismissed by order dated 25.3.2017, hence, this petition.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
9. cri wp 3132-17.doc
3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected in view of Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Rule 4(2) states that the prisoners convicted for the offences under Sections 392 to 402 of IPC (both inclusive) shall not be eligible to be granted furlough. The petitioner is admittedly convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 341 and 397 of IPC. Thus, as the petitioner has been convicted under Section 397 of IPC, he would not be eligible to be granted furlough in view of Rule 4(2) of the Prisons Rules.
4. The virus of rule 4(2) was challenged before the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in case of Juvansingh Vs. State of Gujarat, 1973 G L R 104 and the Division Bench upheld the validity of said category. It is held that rule 4(2) is valid and intra vires and not vulnerable to the charge of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
9. cri wp 3132-17.doc
It was contended before the High Court that the
prisoner convicted for an offence under Section 302 of IPC is entitled for the release on furlough but the prisoner convicted for an offence under Sections 394 and 397 are not entitled to be released on furlough though an offence under Section 302 is of more serious nature. While answering the contention, the High Court said that -
" As observed earlier, consideration of sympathy for him cannot be permitted to overshadow the consideration regarding security of the society. Similarly with regard to the lesser offence of robbery, it would be extremely hazardous to let the prisoner loose before the expiry of the term of imprisonment. It would be hazardous to do so because when one abandons honest labour for the career of theft or intimidation coupled with violence (which brings easy money though at some risk) it tends to become a way of life and the temptation is too great to resist when the prisoner is at large. The offences of robbery and dacoity, therefore, fall within a class by themselves. [ Para 9 ] Thus, it is held that the classification is based on the danger inherent in releasing such prisoner and as such has nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
5. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere, jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
9. cri wp 3132-17.doc hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
6. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is lodged in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba.
[ M.S. SONAK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ] jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4