AARIF Vs. N C KHADAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Writ petition no. 1081 of 2012 is received through jail. In Criminal Writ Petition no. 2773 of 2012, the learned counsel appearing for the same petitioner has stated that he is not pressing the petition and he wants to withdraw the petition. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1081 of 2012 was released on furlough under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The period of furlough leave was from 27th July 2011 to 9th August 2011. While releasing the petitioner on furlough, personal bond in accordance with Rules 7 and 2 of the said Rules in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was taken from the petitioner. Cash surety of Rs. 15,000/- was taken from the petitioner and accordingly a bond giving cash surety in format 'C' was got executed from the petitioner. An order was passed on 20th July 2012 by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Western Zone, Pune, holding that the petitioner has committed breach of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of the said Rules in as much as while the petitioner was on furlough, a non cognizable offence has been registered against him, at Vijapur Naka police station, Solapur. It appears that on the basis of the said non cognizable offence registered against the petitioner, proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) were initiated. It appears that on conclusion of the said proceedings, a bond for good behaviour in accordance with section 107 of the said Code was taken from the petitioner. By order dated 20th July 2012, cash security amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been ordered to be forfeited. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20th July 2012 by which the security amount of Rs. 15,000/- was forfeited. There is also a challenge to the validity of Rule 10 of the said Rules. There is also a challenge to the proceedings under section 107 of the said Code.

(2.) The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 10 of the said Rules which provides for conditions of release incorporates certain conditions which virtually defeat the very object of granting furlough leave. He submitted that mere registration of an offence is no ground to come to the conclusion that there is a breach of conditions incorporated in Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of the said Rules. He urged that on the basis of the non cognizable offence registered against the petitioner, security deposit of Rs. 15,000/- was forfeited and only on the basis of the registration of non cognizable offence, proceedings under section 107 of the said Code were initiated. The bond was taken from the petitioner in the proceeding under section 107 of the said Code. He submitted that thus the petitioner has been penalised for the same alleged act on two occasions. He submitted that even the proceedings initiated under section 107 of the said Code is bad in law.

(3.) The learned A.P.P for State submitted that Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 has been enacted to ensure good behaviour on the part of the prisoner who has been released on furlough. He urged that the commission of any act or omission constituting an offence amounts to mis-behaviour. He submitted that the bond and security is taken for ensuring good behaviour and therefore, if the petitioner indulges in any act or omission which shows that his behaviour was not good, the authority is entitled to forfeit the cash security deposit of Rs. 15,000/-.