ANIL LAXMAN JAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the respective parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant case on earlier occasions though the petitioner did not surrender on due date and, at times, was required to be arrested by the police and brought him back to the prison, that by itself, cannot be a ground for denying grant of furlough or parole leave to the petitioner in future. It is contended that, in the instant case the petitioner has applied for grant of furlough leave. However, the Competent authority has rejected the request of the petitioner vide order dated 5-2-2007 in view of the provisions of Rule 4 (10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole)Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that substantive punishment has already been awarded by the Competent Authority to the petitioner for late surrender. Therefore, the competent Authority cannot take away his legal right to get furlough leave in future merely because the petitioner did not surrender before the Jail Authorities after expiry of period of parole/furlough leave on earlier occasion.

(3.) MR. Mirza, learned A. P. P. for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order, and has contended that as per Rule 4 (10) of the rules, the petitioner is not entitled to get parole leave since he did not surrender before the Jail Authorities after release on parole/furlough leave on due date and was required to be arrested in order to bring him back to the prison. It is also contended by the A. P. P. that on some occasion though the petitioner surrendered before the Jail authorities, on his own, but not on due date.