SHAMIM RAZAK MUSTAFA SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULES . Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of the rule. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the authority has wrongly rejected his due furlough. Even earlier, when the Jail authority was not permitting the prisoner to move the application for furlough, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing criminal writ petition No.594 of 1997. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said writ petition, as per judgment and order dated 15th July 1997, in paragraph 6 has observed as under :

(3.) DURING the hearing, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the prisoner was involved in an offence where he was convicted for the offence under section 302 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. and he was tried before the learned Sessions Case No.350 of 1992 where the incident has occurred within the jurisdiction of Saki Naka Police Station. He further informed that other case relied upon by the authority which is considered to be pending against him, it is his instructions from the relatives of the prisoner that even that case has ended in acquittal. The fact remained that the jail authority has on considering the adverse opinion submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police dated 12th September 1997 has rejected furlough application. The prisoner is in jail from 20th July 1991 as per the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and he is undergoing the sentence. The jail authority while considering the police opinion is required to consider that whether the certain conditions can be imposed upon the prisoner while releasing him on furlough leave viz. he should not enter the certain area where the witnesses or complainant party are residing and further on imposing conditions to report at the nearest police station. However, it seems that the jail authority has on receiving the report accepted the police opinion and rejected the application for furlough without considering these aspects. It is not the case of the respondents that the prisoner is not entitled for his furlough leave. The petitioner cannot be denied his statutory right to enjoy his furlough and to meet in the society and also to the family members.