Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Choudhari for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. S. A. Gaikwad for respondents/State.

4. The petitioner convict is undergoing imprisonment for life in connection with Bombay Bomb Blast Case No.01 of 1993 by the Designated Court (under TADA), Greater Bombay by judgment dated 07.06.2007. In short, the petitioner convict was one of the accused in Bombay Bomb Blast case 1993. He had applied for furlough leave on 05.04.2024, however, the said application came to be rejected by respondent No.3 on 25.06.2024. Then the petitioner had preferred the appeal before respondent No.2, who had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of respondent No.3 by order dated 03.09.2024. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the past, on various occasions since 2009, the applicant was released on parole and furlough. Another co-accused - Sardar Shahvali Khan was also released similarly. In fact, the order of granting furlough leave also challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court had not wp-1789-2024.odt entertained the said petition by the State Government. The record would show that on all the occasions, the applicant had surrendered himself to the jail authority in time. Only once, he had returned after a delay of one day. Now, the State Government says that Rule 4 (4), 4 (13) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "Furlough and Parole Rules") have been amended on 16.04.2018 thereby changing the Rule that the convicts under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "TADA Act") are not entitled to be released on parole or furlough. The said rule cannot be made applicable retrospectively as the conviction of the petitioner is prior to the amendment.