Bombay High Court
Sanjay Sahebrao Alias Natha Pawar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 March, 2026
(1)
Cri.WP-90.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 90 OF 2026
Sanjay Sahebrao @ Natha
Pawar (Convict No.8452) Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Superintendent, Harsul
Jail, Chh. Sambhajinagar
2. D.I.G. Prisons, Central Division,
Chh. Sambhajinagar
3. Inspector General of Prison,
Yerwada, Pune Respondents
...
Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
Reserved on : 26.02.2026
Pronounced on : 18.03.2026
Order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the
consent of learned counsel Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal for the
petitioner as well as learned APP Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, heard
finally at the stage of admission.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner convict is
(2)
Cri.WP-90.2026.odt
seeking quashing of orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated
25.09.2025 and 03.12.2025 respectively, thereby rejecting the
application of the petitioner for parole leave, on the grounds
that there was negative police report and the petitioner
absconded on earlier occasion and that as per Rule 4(2) (j) of
the Maharashtra Prison (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2024"), he is not
entitled for parole leave.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302 and others of the Indian Penal Code in
Sessions Case No.56/2009 by learned Sessions Judge, Beed
and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life till his natural
death. He further submitted that the petitioner filed an
application for parole leave on 12.04.2025 to respondent No.1
which was, in turn, forwarded to respondent No.2. But
respondent No.2, under order dated 25.09.2025 rejected the
same on the ground that there was negative police report and
that the petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life till his natural death. Even the appeal made by petitioner
to respondent No.3 was also rejected on 03.12.2025 by
confirming the aforesaid order of respondent No.2. According
(3)
Cri.WP-90.2026.odt
to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was
released on furlough leave on various occasions in the past
also and except on one occasion, he surrendered himself in
time. Only on one occasion he had absconded for 728 days,
but for that late surrender he is already removed from
remission register and thus punished substantially.
According to him, considering the object of parole and
furlough leave, there cannot be bar of Ruls 4 (2(j) of Rules of
2024. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on
the following judgments.
(i) Atbir vs State of NCT of Delhi; 2022 ALL SCR (Cri) 1351
(ii) Judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.789
of 2025 (Sanjay Sahebrao @ Natha Pawar and others
4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. According to
him, both the impugned orders have been passed by
respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per the Rules of 2024 wherein it is
categorically mentioned that a prisoner, sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life till his natural death, is not entitled to
be released on parole. As such, he supported both the
impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
(4)
Cri.WP-90.2026.odt
5. The record shows that the petitioner had sought
his release on parole leave on account of illness of his
daughter. Further, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Georai,
District Beed had also submitted inquiry report wherein it
was mentioned that one Sangita Kailas Pawar who is close
relative of the petitioner, was ready to stand surety to him.
Moreover, it is also mentioned in the said report that
daughter of the petitioner is suffering from Appendicitis which
is serious in nature as per the certificate of Civil Surgeon,
Jalna. In the said report it was also intimated that since the
surety was female, she was not competent to stand as a
surety. Thus, one of the grounds for rejection of parole leave
to the petitioner is the negative police report. However, the
opinion that surety being a lady is not competent to stand as
surety to the petitioner, is definitely erroneous.
6. The second ground mentioned in the order is that
in the past the petitioner had surrendered belatedly by 728
days. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Atbir vs
State of NCT of Delhi (supra), by considering the existing
Rules for furlough and parole leave and also various
judgments passed earlier, has made following observations.
"15. In other words, even if the appellant is to
(5)
Cri.WP-90.2026.odt
remain in prison for the whole of remainder of his
life, the expectations from him of good conduct in jail
would always remain; and the lawful consequences
of good conduct, including that of furlough, cannot
be denied, particularly when the same has not been
prohibited in the order dated 15.11.2012. We need
not elaborate to say that depriving of even the
concession of furlough and thereby taking away an
incentive/motivation for good conduct would not
only be counter-productive but would be an
antithesis to the reformative approach otherwise
running through the scheme of Rules of 2018.
16. We may also observe that in the impugned
order passed by the Director General of Prisons, it
has been stated in paragraph 2 that the appellant
had not earned the last 3 Annual good conduct
reports. Such observations, prima facie, appear to
be of mixing up the 'Annual good conduct report'
with 'Annual good conduct remissions'. Be that as it
may, we would leave all other aspects of
entitlement of the appellant to furlough open for
consideration of the authorities concerned. However,
the appellant cannot be denied furlough with
reference to the order dated 15.11.2012. The said
order cannot be construed to take away the
requirements on the appellant to maintain good
conduct; and to take away the rights, if flowing
from his maintaining good conduct.
17. Thus, looking to the concept of furlough and the
reasons for extending this concession to a prisoner
lead us to hold that even if a prisoner like the
appellant is not to get any remission in his sentence
and has to serve the sentence of imprisonment
throughout his natural life, neither the requirements
of his maintaining good conduct are whittled down
nor the reformative approach and incentive for good
conduct cease to exist in his relation. Thus, if he
maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied
as a matter of course.
17.1. We would hasten to observe that whether
furlough is to be granted in a given case or not is a
matter entirely different. Taking the case of the
appellant, he is a person convicted of multiple
(6)
Cri.WP-90.2026.odt
murders. Therefore, the requirement of Rule 1225 of
the Rules of 2018 may come into operation.
However, it cannot be said that his case would
never be considered for furlough. Whether he is to
be given furlough on the parameters delineated
therein or not is a matter to be examined by the
authorities in accordance with law.
18. In view of the above, while disapproving blanket
denial of furlough to the appellant in the orders
impugned, we would leave the case of the appellant
for grant of furlough open for examination by the
authorities concerned in accordance with law".
On going through the aforesaid observations, it is
clearly evident that even if a prisoner is not to get any
remission in his sentence, but that does not mean that he
cannot be released on furlough or parole leave. It is extremely
important to note that furlough and parole leave are granted
to the convicts for following purposes
a) To enable the inmate to maintain continuity with
his family and deal with family matter.
b) To save him from evil effects of continuous prison
life.
c) To enable him to maintain and develop his self
confidence.
d) To enable him to develop constructive hope and
active interest in life.
and considering these purposes only, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has kept aside the Prison Rules for furlough and leave of
Gujrath State, which are pari materia to the Maharashtra
Rules of 2024.
(7)
Cri.WP-90.2026.odt
7. Therefore, in the instant case there should not be
any impediment to grant parole leave to the petitioner
specially in the light of the observations in the aforesaid case.
8. It is not in dispute that earlier also the petitioner
was released on furlough leave as per the following table, after
the incident of his belated surrender.
Sr. No. Furlough/Parole leave Surrender
1. Furlough leave 05.10.2022 On time
2. Furlough leave 14.07.2023 On time
3. Furlough leave 06.03.2024 On time
4. Furlough leave 2025 On time
. It is clearly evident that on the aforesaid occasions
the petitioner had surrendered in time. Under such
circumstances and considering the aforesaid aspects, we are
of the opinion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have definitely
committed error in passing the impugned orders by not
considering the reason for parole leave in proper perspective
and in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex court
as mentioned above. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, vide order dated 19.08.2025 in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 789 of 2025, while dealing with the similarly placed
petitioner, has also directed the respondents to release the
(8)
Cri.WP-90.2026.odt
then petitioner on furlough leave. Therefore, wse pass the
following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed partly.
(ii) The impugned orders dated 25.09.2025 and 03.12.2025 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondents are directed to release the petitioner by imposing appropriate conditions and to pass the order accordingly within a period of one week from the communication of this order.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
VD_Dhirde