Eknath Laxman Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Additional Director General Of Police And ORS

42-cri-wp-24-18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2018 Eknath L. Shinde

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondents

---- Mr. D.G. Khamkar for the Petitioner.

Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent-State. ---- CORAM : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. & M. S. SONAK, J.

DATE : 25.04.2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :

1] Heard both sides.

2] The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough on 1.04.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 20.03.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 09.10.2017, hence, this petition. 3] One of the main grounds for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough is that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending before the higher court. This was in pursuance to

42-cri-wp-24-18 Rule 4(11) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (Rules 1959). The said Rule stated that when the appeal of a prisoner against his conviction is pending before the higher forum, he shall not be eligible to be granted furlough. However, by Notification dated 16.04.2018, the said Rule has been deleted. Hence, this ground is not a good ground to reject the application of the petitioner for furlough. It appears that this was the main ground which influenced the authority while deciding the application of the petitioner for furlough. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders dated 20.03.2017 and 09.10.2017 and the matter is remanded back to the Sanctioning Authority to consider the application of the petitioner for release on furlough afresh. The same to be done expeditiously by the Sanctioning Authority. 4] Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(M.S. SONAK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) D.S.Sherla