Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sukhdeo Bhagwan Gaikwad, was a prisoner lodged in Central Jail Harsool, Aurangabad. He was released on furlough for a period of two weeks by an order dated 9-9-2011 of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad, and was released on 3-10-2011. During the furlough, his mother fell ill, and he forwarded an application for extension of furlough on 7-10-2011, which was received by the jail authorities on 10-10-2011. He attended the police station as per the release order but did not attend the police station after the expiry of the initial date of surrender to the jail authorities, which was 18-10-2011, with fear that he would be arrested and brought back to jail. He did not receive any intimation regarding his request for extension. Therefore, he himself surrendered to the jail authorities on 30-10-2011. According to the jail authorities, the petitioner surrendered 14 days late, and they issued a notice to show cause why the period of absence should not be treated as an unauthorized absence and why punishment should not be imposed. The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition seeking that the period of his absence be treated as extension of furlough and that no adverse action be taken against him. The court considered that the petitioner had applied for extension before the expiry of furlough, his mother was ill, and he surrendered voluntarily. The court held that the period of absence should be treated as extension of furlough and directed that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Prisons - Furlough Extension - Compassionate Grounds - Bombay Prisons (Extension of Furlough) Rules - Petitioner was released on furlough for two weeks; his mother fell ill and he applied for extension before expiry - He surrendered 14 days late due to fear of arrest - Court held that the period of absence should be treated as extension of furlough and no adverse action be taken against him - Held that the petitioner's application for extension was pending and he surrendered voluntarily, thus no fault on his part (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of absence of a prisoner who surrendered late after expiry of furlough should be treated as extension of furlough or as an unauthorized absence warranting punishment.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, treating the period of absence as extension of furlough, and directed that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Furlough extension
- surrender delay
- compassionate grounds
- mother's illness
- no adverse inference
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (03) 5
Criminal Writ Petition No.88 of 2012
Naresh H Patil, T.V. Nalawade
Smt. Madhaveshwari D. Thube-Mhase (for petitioner), Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor (for respondents)
The State of Maharashtra, The Inspector General Jails, Central Division, Aurangabad, Deputy Inspector of General Jails, Central Division, Aurangabad, Superintendent of Jails, Aurangabad Central Jail, Aurangabad, The Superintendent of Police, District Hingoli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking direction to treat period of absence as extension of furlough and to quash show cause notice for unauthorized absence.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought that the period of his absence after expiry of furlough be treated as extension of furlough and that no adverse action be taken against him.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was released on furlough for two weeks; his mother fell ill and he applied for extension before expiry; he surrendered 14 days late; jail authorities issued show cause notice for unauthorized absence.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner was released on furlough by order dated 9-9-2011; he applied for extension on 7-10-2011; he surrendered on 30-10-2011; jail authorities issued show cause notice.
Issues
Whether the period of absence of a prisoner who surrendered late after expiry of furlough should be treated as extension of furlough or as an unauthorized absence warranting punishment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he applied for extension before expiry of furlough due to mother's illness, did not receive any intimation, and surrendered voluntarily; therefore, the period should be treated as extension of furlough.
Respondents (jail authorities) contended that the petitioner surrendered 14 days late and issued show cause notice for unauthorized absence.
Ratio Decidendi
When a prisoner applies for extension of furlough before expiry on compassionate grounds and surrenders voluntarily without any intimation of rejection, the period of absence should be treated as extension of furlough and no adverse action should be taken.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was released on furlough for a period of two weeks by an order dated 9-9-2011...
The petitioner did not receive any intimation in respect of his request for extension of furlough. Therefore he himself surrender to the jail authorities on 30-10-2011.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the period of absence of the petitioner be treated as extension of furlough and no adverse action be taken against the petitioner.
Procedural History
Petitioner was released on furlough on 3-10-2011 for two weeks. He applied for extension on 7-10-2011. He surrendered on 30-10-2011. Jail authorities issued show cause notice. Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.88 of 2012 in Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 26-3-2012.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Prisons (Extension of Furlough) Rules:
