Bombay HC refuses interim relief in furlough pleas of two sisters whose death sentence was commuted to life term

A bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale admitted their writ pleas but rejected interim relief to the sisters.

The two sisters were convicted for kidnapping 13 children, killing some of them and using the others as cover to snatch purses and chains between 1990 and 1996. The sisters were arrested in November 1996 while their mother Anjana Gavit, a co-accused, died of illness in 1998. The death sentences of Shinde and Gavit, both from Kolhapur, were confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2006.

In 2022, a Bombay HC bench— led by Justice Nitin M Jamdar (now Chief Justice of Kerala HC)— observed that the state machinery showed “laxity and indifference” in deciding on their mercy pleas, therefore, their death sentences were required to be commuted.

While Seema Gavit filed writ plea seeking furlough in 2024, Shinde too approached HC earlier this year.

Seeking dismissal of Gavit’s plea, the state prison authority in March this year had told the high court that her conduct in jail was “absolutely insufferable and violent” and her release would be dangerous to society at large. The authority also claimed that it will not be appropriate to grant furlough to the petitioner “considering the seriousness of the crime and the gruesome acts committed by her”.

Swati Sathe, Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Western Region, in her affidavit stated that a complaint under Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against Gavit for damages caused to toilet pot and small wall around the toilet in jail and that she tried to injure herself.

Shinde, in her plea had claimed that the Supreme Court disapproved blanket denial of furlough, therefore the authority’s reliance on 2018 rules to deny her the said right was “arbitrary.”

Earlier, the authority, while responding to Shinde’s plea had also referred to Maharashtra Prison (Mumbai Furlough And Parole) Amendment Rules 2018, stating that furlough period shall be counted as remission of sentence and if the same is granted, it will be in contempt of Supreme Court verdict.

The authority also said that “larger interest of the society must also be taken into account” while releasing the convict on furlough. The state authority had also said that the SC, had directed the accused to undergo life imprisonment for natural life and without any remission, therefore the same cannot exclude her release on parole/furlough, which formed part of remission system.

The bench on Thursday admitted the pleas by the sisters who are in their late forties and noted, “As the SC has directed the petitioner to undergo life imprisonment for natural life and without any remission, we are not inclined to grant interim relief. Interim relief is rejected.”

From the homepage

Govt cancels foreign funding licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO amid Ladakh protests

‘Intent to malign reputation’: Sameer Wankhede moves Delhi High Court against Aryan Khan’s ‘The Ba***ds of Bollywood’

After protests and deaths, the crackdown: 50 people picked up, Congress councillor booked in Leh