Ratu Alias Ratnakar Shamrao Kale. v. The State Of Maharashtra.

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.242 OF 2016 Ratu @ Ratnakar S/o Shamrao Kale Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and other Respondents Mr.A.A. Nimbalkar advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for Respondents _______________ CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J & K.L. WADANE, JJ (Date : 6th APRIL, 2016.) PER COURT :- 1] The only prayer that needs to be considered is in respect of issuance of directions to the respondent authorities to consider computation of period in respect of availment of furlough granted to the petitioner for an ex tended period of 14 days referable to the period anterior to the date of enforcement of the amendment to Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Amendment Rules, 1959.

2] By virtue of amendment incorporated in Rule 16, it

{2} is prescribed that the furlough period shall be counted as remission of sentence.

The amendment is enforced since 23.4.2012. The prison authorities have refused to grant the benefit of the amendment in respect of grant of furlough for a period anterior to the enforcement of amended provisions of the Rules while computing the period in respect of remission of sentence of the petitioner.

3] The Division Bench of this Court at Bombay while dealing with Writ Petition No. 1485/2013 in the matter of Jagannath Raghunath Shelke v.

The State of Maharashtra & others decided on 24.1.22013 issued directions to the respondent authorities that the petitioner therein be considered for grant of premature release and the remission shall have to be granted in terms of the judgment. It is observed in paragraph no.13 of the said judgment that when a case of life convict is considered for premature release on or after 23.4.2012, the benefit of amended Rule 16 of the said Rules will have to be given even in case of the extended period of furlough of 14 days granted prior to 23.4.2012.

{3} 4] In view of the judgment, as cited above, the identical relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant petition also deserves to be granted and it is accordingly being granted. 5] The petitioner shall be granted similar benefits and be considered for premature release on considering his claim for remission in sentence in terms of the amended Rule 16 and the benefit shall be given in respect of the period anterior to 23.4.2012 also.

6] Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(K.L. WADANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J) vbd