Bombay High Court
Ravindra Yougiraj Paul vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 June, 2019
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, A.M. Dhavale, R.G. Avachat
1-CR.WP.378-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.378 OF 2013
Ravindra s/o. Yougiraj Paul,
Age : 26 years, Occ. Prisoner,
Convict No.7290,
r/o. At Anand Nagar,
Canara Bank Colony, Beed
at present in Central Prison,
at Aurangabad ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Deputy Inspector General
of Prison/the Inspector
General of Prison,
Central Prison,
Aurangabad
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Aurangabad ..Respondents
----
Mr.R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate (appointed) with Mrs.B.B.
Gunjal, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.A.B.Girase, Public Prosecutor for respondents
----
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE,
A.M. DHAVALE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 26, 2019
::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 01:36:41 :::
2 1-CR.WP.378-13
ORAL ORDER :-
This Bench was constituted to consider the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court on 06.05.2013. On the backdrop of non-agreement with the view reflected in the judgment in the case of Gorakh @ Baba Patole Vs. Government of Maharashtra and ors., 1993(2)Mh.L.J. 1423, the Division Bench in paragraphs 8 and 9 was pleased to observe thus :-
8. We are not able to persuade ourselves to agree with the view adopted by the Division Bench in respect of interpretation put up on the provisions of Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The offence committed by the petitioner for which he was convicted and sentenced is of serious nature. He was convicted for offences punishable under sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is an offence against the society. The High Court while dealing with the appeal of the petitioner, maintained conviction and ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 01:36:41 ::: 3 1-CR.WP.378-13 sentenced awarded for offences punishable under sections 373 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, substantive sentence awarded under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was reduced from rigorous imprisonment of 10 years to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years.
9. Bifurcating two distinct offences for granting benefit of furlough rules to the accused, in our considered view, would not be a reasonable and proper approach. Considering the nature of offence committed by the convict in this case, granting benefit under furlough rules to him would not send a good signal to the society at large. In our view, on the whole the nature of offence committed by the petitioner is required to be looked into.
2. The very issue of grant of benefits to the prisoners under the provisions of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, was rethought by ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 01:36:41 ::: 4 1-CR.WP.378-13 the State Government in its discretion and this rethinking exercise resulted into amendment to the Rules following the notification dated 16.04.2018.
The amendment reads thus :-
4. Eligibility for furlough:- All Indian prisoners except from following categories whose annual conduct reports are good shall be eligible for furlough:-
(1) to (12) .............
(13) Who is sentenced for
offences such as terrorist
crimes, mutiny against state, kidnapping for ransom (Prisoners may be eligible for furlough after completion of stipulated sentence in the respective section);
3. The amendment, thus, takes care of the situation, which prompted the Division Bench for reference. As the issue is now addressed and redressed to also by the State Government, there is ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 01:36:41 :::
5 1-CR.WP.378-13 hardly any cause for us to answer the issue framed for consideration by the Division bench.
4. Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, invites our attention to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Dinesh Kumar Etc. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).11197-11198/2013 and 11200/2013]. In that case, in somewhat similar situation, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Dehli, exercising its powers, has effected certain amendments in the Rules. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are as under :-
" ....
Clause 26.4 of the Guidelines of
2010 was challenged and the Delhi High Court declared it as unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment of the High Court is challenged by the Union of India in ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 01:36:41 ::: 6 1-CR.WP.378-13 these Special Leave petitions.
Ms.Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 71 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has made the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018. She referred to Rule 1224 which deals with the eligibility for release on Furlough. She submits that the concern shown by the High Court regarding the discrimination of prisoners who have been convicted of rubbery, decoity, arson, kidnapping, abduction, rape and extortion has been addressed by the Government. As per Rule 1224 an exception is carved out only for prisoners convicted for sedition, terrorist activities and NDPS Act.
She further submits that nothing remains for consideration in these Special Leave Petitions in view of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 being brought into force. The interest of the respondent is not adversely affected. He was given the benefit of Furlough.
::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 01:36:41 :::7 1-CR.WP.378-13 The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
5. We make it clear that as the amended Rules are occupying the field now, if a person has any grievance, he is at liberty to challenge the Rules by approaching an appropriate and competent forum including judicial forum, if so advised.
6. Let the Writ Petition be placed before the appropriate Bench for its further consideration on merits.
7. We place on record the words of appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr.Deshmukh, learned Counsel (appointed) and Mrs.Gunjal, learned Counsel for the petitioner so also Mr.Girase, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
8. We quantify the fees of Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, learned Counsel (appointed) for the petitioner at ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 01:36:41 ::: 8 1-CR.WP.378-13 Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). Mr.Deshmukh is gracious enough to state that the fees so quantified, be deposited in the account of High Court Bar Association's Library.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.] [A.M. DHAVALE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.] kbp ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 01:36:41 :::