Bombay High Court junks prisoner’s plea for furlough as he misused it earlier

A bench of Justices V K Tahilramani and Mridula Bhatkar dismissed the petition filed by Chetan Dumbare as he has been convicted under IPC for robbery and voluntarily causing hurt to people.

By: PTI | Mumbai | Published:October 29, 2016 10:52 am
bombay high court, yerwada jail, yerwada jail plea, india news, indian express, Bombay High Court. (File Photo)

The Bombay High Court has rejected the plea of a prisoner lodged in Pune’s Yerwada prison seeking release on furlough on the ground that he had misused this facility earlier by overstaying the leave period outside jail and the nature of his offences. A bench of Justices V K Tahilramani and Mridula Bhatkar on October 26 dismissed the petition filed by Chetan Dumbare as he has been convicted under IPC for robbery and voluntarily
causing hurt to people.

Watch What Else Is Making News 

The bench noted that the prisoner had jumped furlough earlier and he had overstayed outside jail for a period of 631 days. “So there is some basis in the apprehension expressed by the authorities that this time also, he may jump furlough leave and not return to jail in time.” Moreover, the bench said, “In view of Rule 4(2) and the other facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot find any fault with the authorities for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough.

“We are not inclined to interfere. In view of this, the rule is discharged,” the bench noted. The prosecution opposed the release of the prisoner on
furlough on the ground that he was involved in a robbery case under Section 394 of IPC, hence, in view of Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959, he is not entitled to be released on furlough.

Rule 4(2) provides that the prisoner convicted of the offences under Sections 392 to 402 of IPC (robbery and causing hurt while committing such offence) shall not be granted furlough.

The bench noted that the conduct of the petitioner in jail has not been satisfactory. In view of these facts, his application for furlough had been rejected. The petitioner had filed an application for furlough on April 13, 2015. However, it was rejected on November 10, 2015. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by an order dated March 9 this year. Thereafter, he filed a petition in the high court seeking release on furlough which was also rejected by the division bench.