S.S.SHINDE, PRAKASH D.NAIK, N.J.JAMADAR
MOHD. RAEES S/O SHAHZADE ANSARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
The facts of the case involve a prisoner convicted under the MCOC Act who sought furlough leave, but his application was rejected primarily due to adverse police reports and concerns about the possibility of absconding. The petitioner challenged this rejection, leading to a referral to a larger Bench to determine whether being incarcerated for an offence under the MCOC Act could be considered a factor that disqualifies a prisoner from receiving furlough, similar to other specific offences listed in the relevant rules.
The core issue presented is whether the circumstance of being behind bars for an offence under the MCOC Act can be considered against the prisoner in the context of furlough eligibility, and whether this circumstance can be treated as an exception akin to other offences explicitly excluded by the furlough rules.
The ratio of the decision emphasizes that there is no conflicting legal decision in the field regarding this issue. It clarifies that the existing rules do not specifically exclude prisoners convicted under the MCOC Act from eligibility for furlough leave. The rules primarily exclude prisoners convicted for certain offences, notably those involving violence, serious prison violations, or other specific crimes, but do not explicitly mention offences under the MCOC Act. The court underscores that the authority's consideration of adverse police reports or the potential risk of absconding is within its subjective discretion, and the absence of a specific exclusion in the rules indicates that such prisoners are not categorically barred from furlough.
Consequently, the court concluded that there is no legal basis to treat incarceration under the MCOC Act as an automatic disqualification, and no conflict exists in the law. Therefore, the matter was returned to the original bench for a decision on the merits, affirming that the eligibility of prisoners convicted under the MCOC Act for furlough leave remains open unless explicitly excluded by law or regulation.
ORDER :
1. The Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1518 of 2021 (Initially registered as Criminal Writ Petition No. 1512 of 2020) had preferred the petition before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court with the prayer that the petitioner be released on furlough leave by setting aside orders dated 5th October, 2020 and 11th September, 2019, passed by respondent No. 1, refusing furlough leave.
2. The factual matrix of the petition indicate as follows:
(ii) The petitioner preferred an application before respondent No. 3 for releasing him on furlough leave. The application was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide dated 11th September, 2019 on the ground that there is possibility of threat to life of witnesses. The said order was challenged before the r
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.