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

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

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

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -