Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gajanan Eknath Murle, a life convict undergoing imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the competent authority rejecting his furlough leave application. The petitioner had applied for furlough on 8.7.2009. The rejection was based on two grounds: first, that when the petitioner was released on furlough in 2003, he did not surrender in time and had to be arrested after 1103 days; second, that the surety offered by the petitioner did not own immovable property. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the rejection on the ground of previous overstay by 1103 days cannot be said to be illegal and does not warrant interference. Consequently, the court discharged the rule and dismissed the petition. The court also quantified the fees payable to the appointed advocate for the petitioner at Rs. 750.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Prisoners - Furlough Leave - Rejection on Ground of Previous Overstay - The petitioner, a life convict, challenged the rejection of his furlough leave application. The competent authority rejected it because the petitioner had previously overstayed his furlough by 1103 days in 2003. The High Court held that such rejection cannot be said to be illegal and does not warrant interference. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of furlough leave to a life convict on the ground of previous overstay by 1103 days is illegal and warrants interference by the High Court.
Final Decision
Rule discharged. The petition is dismissed. The impugned order rejecting furlough leave is upheld.
Law Points
- Furlough leave
- Rejection of furlough
- Previous overstay
- Discretion of competent authority
- Non-interference by court
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 121
Criminal Writ Petition No. 664/2009
S.M. Ghodeswar (for petitioner), J.B. Jaiswal (A.P.P. for respondents)
The State of Maharashtra, Through the D.I.G. Prisons (E) (R) Nagpur; The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging rejection of furlough leave.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 4.8.2009 rejecting his furlough leave application and to be granted furlough.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's furlough leave application was rejected by the competent authority on grounds of previous overstay and insufficient surety.
Previous Decisions
The competent authority passed the order dated 4.8.2009 rejecting furlough leave.
Issues
Whether the rejection of furlough leave on the ground of previous overstay by 1103 days is illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the rejection of furlough leave was illegal and warranted interference.
The respondents supported the rejection on the ground of previous overstay.
Ratio Decidendi
Rejection of furlough leave on the ground that the petitioner had previously overstayed his furlough by 1103 days cannot be said to be illegal and does not warrant interference by the court.
Judgment Excerpts
Rejection of furlough leave to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had to be arrested after 1103 days can not be said to be illegal warranting interference by this court.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the competent authority refusing furlough leave to the petitioner can not be faulted.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application for furlough leave on 8.7.2009. The competent authority rejected it by order dated 4.8.2009. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 664/2009 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and disposed of on 14.1.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
