Bombay HC directs Deputy Inspector to Reconsider Granting Leave to Convict wh Forged Bail Order

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

A Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution was filed by a convict seeking quashing of orders passed by the Deputy Inspector and Inspector General who refused to grant leave. The Bombay HC quashed the aforementioned orders and directed the Deputy Inspector to reconsider the application as expeditiously as possible.

Brief Facts

The petitioner was arrested on 3rd February 2013 for an offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 14 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of CR No. 14 of 2013. By an order dated 1st December 2014 purportedly passed by a trial court, the petitioner was released on bail. Later, it was found out that the bail described above order was forged. The petitioner surrendered on 11th February 2014, and a separate case for forging a bail order was instituted against him. In this matter, he was convicted under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, he was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The petitioner completed this sentence on 17th June 2017 after which he was tried for the offence arising out of CR No. 14 of 2013. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment on 11th June 2019. The petitioner’s applications for furlough were denied, which led to the present petition.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner submitted that the Deputy Inspector (Respondent 2) is not justified in rejecting the furlough application on the ground that Clause 10 of Rule 4 disentitled the petitioner from claiming furlough. As per the petitioner, Clause 10 Rule 4 only applies to prisoners who have escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in surrendering themselves after release on parole or furlough. It is argued that since the petitioner was released based on a forged bail order as against escaping from lawful custody, the issue of breach of earlier parole or furlough doesn’t arise. The petitioner had already been convicted and has completed the sentence imposed due to the infraction of Section 224 of the IPC. Thus, he must not be vexed for the same cause twice in light of the principle of double jeopardy. Moreover, furlough is a matter of right, and a mere adverse report by the Superintendent of Police cannot be the basis for rejecting the petitioner’s application of furlough.

Respondent’s Submissions

The respondent submitted that the rules cannot be construed in a manner that confers a legal right on a prisoner to claim release in furlough in light of Rule 17. In light of the petitioner’s conviction under Section 224 of IPC on account of having forged a bail order and the adverse report from the Superintendent, the request for furlough has been rightly denied. The Superintendent of Police has recorded the statement of the witnesses about their apprehension of threat to their lives if the petitioner is granted furlough.

Court’s Observations

The Court accepted the submissions of the petitioner that Clause 10 Rule 4 cannot be a ground for rejecting the furlough of the petitioner. The petitioner neither escaped nor attempted an escape from lawful custody and therefore, the question of default in surrendering doesn’t arise in the present case. For Clause 10, Rule 4 to apply, it must be shown that the prisoner has escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody. Since the petitioner has already completed the sentence for forging a bail order, the rejection of a furlough on the aforementioned ground is unsustainable. Moreover, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner’s conduct was not good.

The second ground on which furlough was rejected due to the report of the Superintendent that there was a likelihood of a threat to the life of witnesses. The Court held that the present order couldn’t be sustained as the petitioner was already convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, the question of tampering with witnesses wouldn’t arise. Furthermore, there is nothing on record regarding conduct on the part of the petitioner while in custody. Further, the Petitioners’ cousin brother has agreed to take responsibility and is willing to stand as a surety for the petitioner. The petitioner hasn’t been released on furlough so far, and it would be unjust and unfair to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of furlough based on the statement made by the witnesses. The Court relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Asfaq v State of Rajasthan and Ors. where it was held that furlough is a way to ensure that the prisoners maintain their links with society.

Court’s Decision

The Court quashed the orders dated 26th December 2019 and 24th June 2020 passed by the Deputy Inspector and Inspector General rejecting the application for furlough. It directed the respondent no. 2 to re-examine the case of the petitioner and release him if found eligible. The application couldn’t be rejected on the grounds contended above. The Court also directed the respondent’s to conduct the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -