SANJAY MADHUKAR WAGHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) It is true that in the year 2018 the Petitioner, while on furlough, did not surrender to the jail authorities on the due date and was required to be arrested and brought back to the prison, after the delay of about 173 days. It is also true that his earlier furlough application made in the year 2021 was rejected by the Respondent No.1, which order was confirmed by this Court by it's order dtd. 12/8/2021 in Criminal Writ Petition No.426 of 2021. But, the question is for how many days the Petitioner can be deprived of furlough only because, he had not surrendered on due date and was required to be arrested and brought back to the prison once in the terms.

(3.) The Provisions of Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 (for short the "Rules of 1959") state that a prisoner, who has escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in any way in surrendering himself at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough is not eligible to get the benefit of furlough. This rule has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in it's judgment dtd. 26/11/2019 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1535 of 2019 (Satish Shankarrao Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others) along with another connected matters. The opinion of the Division Bench at Aurangabad is that this rule is not mandatory in nature and in fit cases, in spite of default having been made by a prisoner in surrendering on due date, when on furlough or parole, the prisoner can be considered to be given furlough if, facts and circumstances of the case justify. The Division Bench interpreted rule 4(10) of the Rules of 1959 in this fashion, keeping in view the purpose of the furlough and parole scheme when it observed in paragraph No.10 of the judgment, as under :-