Durgaprasad Ganesh Rahangdale v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Addtional Director General Of Police And Inspector General

(1) 922crwp964.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.964/2025 Durgaprasad Ganesh Rahangadale .Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. L. Kadu, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. A. Badar, A.P.P. for respondents CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATE :

DECEMBER 3, 2025.

Respondent No.3 and, thereafter, the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2 have rejected the application filed by petitioner seeking parole leave on the ground that he has been convicted for life with a rider to undergo imprisonment till remainder of the life. 2.

Learned A.P.P. submits that recently the Supreme Court, in Atbir Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, [Criminal Appeal No. 714/2022, decided on 29.04.2022], while dealing with furlough leave, on the facts, which are akin to the present case held in paragraph 17 as under:

"17. Thus, looking to the concept of furlough and the reasons for extending this concession to a prisoner lead us to hold that even if a prisoner like the appellant is not to get any remission in his sentence and has to serve the sentence of imprisonment throughout his natural life, neither the requirements of his maintaining good conduct are whittled down nor the reformative approach and incentive for good conduct cease to exist in his relation. Thus, if he maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied as a matter of course." 3.

Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the benefit of good conduct should be extended to the convicts imposed with sentence of imprisonment throughout his natural life.

4.

Learned A.P.P. submits that respondent No.2 has issued office order on 26.11.2025, directing the Superintendents of Jails in

(2) 922crwp964.25 Vidarbha Region to reconsider the requests, in the light of the aforesaid directions.

5.

Thus, it appears that the respondents will reconsider the request made by the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to reconsider the request of the petitioner, in terms of the judgment cited above, within a period of four weeks from today. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale