Irfan Abdul Rauf Shaikh v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

3.wp4526_2013 vidya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4526 OF 2013 Irfan Abdul Rauf Shaikh ...

Petitioner vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents Ms. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the petitioner. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the State.

CORAM: MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

JUNE 7 , 2016.

ORAL ORDER (Per V.K. Tahilramani, J.) Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.

The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough on 26th April, 2012. The said application for furlough came to be rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal, which came to be dismissed on 17th July, 2013.

3.

The prayer of the petitioner is for releasing him on furlough. It is seen that the petitioner has preferred an application for furlough in the year

3.wp4526_2013 2012. Note (3) of Rule 2 in Chapter XXXVII of the Maharashtra Prison Manual, 1979 which deals with furlough and parole states that "If at any time, a prisoner who could have been granted furlough is either not granted or refused the same, the period for which he could have been granted the furlough, shall not be carried forward but shall lapse". 4.

In view of the above Rule, it is clear that the period of furlough which was being sought in the year 2012 cannot be carried forward. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate that the petitioner prefers a fresh application for furlough. In case the petitioner prefers a fresh application for furlough, the DIG(Prisons), who is the concerned authority, shall decide the same expeditiously.

5.

In view of the above, Rule is discharged.

6.

Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who is in Kolhapur Central Prison. The fees to be paid to the appointed counsel are quantified at Rs.2,000/-.

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)