Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gawankar placed heavy reliance on two authorities : Ashok vs. State of Mah. [1988 Mh.L.J. 903] and Philip John vs. State of HP [1985 Cri.L.J. 397].

8. Mr. Shinde, the learned PP vehemently opposed the wp-951/15(J) petition. He submitted that it has been a problem of long time that in number of cases, the prisoners after obtaining parole or furlough leave, have not surrendered. The issue in this regard was earlier raised before this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2013. This Court by the order dated 27 th September 2013 took note of the fact that several prisoners have absconded after obtaining parole or furlough leave and, observed that stringent measures like provision under section 224 of IPC need to be invoked against such prisoners who fail to report to custody after obtaining parole or furlough leave. He submitted that in pursuant to the observations made by this Court as contained in the order dated 27th September 2013, a Committee consisting of high officials of the Government was formed to give suggestions to implement the system wherein the prisoners granted parole or furlough leave should be brought back to the prison to undergo the remainder of sentence period. This Committee gave certain suggestions, pursuant to which the Rules of 1959 came to be amended extensively. One of the amended provision is about the registration of an FIR for the offence punishable under section 224 of IPC against the prisoner who does not surrender wp-951/15(J) after the expiry of the period of furlough or parole leave.