Public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde told the judges that the government has formed a committee to review/modify the rules. He added that he was a part of the committee but was unable to attend its last meeting. He said he would check the minutes of the meeting and inform the HC.
The Bombay High Court has asked the state government to inform the court what steps it's taking for modifying parole and furlough rules, after the issue was raised following a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging repeated leave being granted to Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt.
A division bench of justices VM Kanade and Revati Mohite-Dere has asked the state to put the details of the steps on affidavit within a week.
Public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde told the judges that the government has formed a committee to review/modify the rules. He added that he was a part of the committee but was unable to attend its last meeting. He said he would check the minutes of the meeting and inform the HC.
The petitioner, advocate Tushar Pabale, has sought a DIG-level inquiry into the parole and furlough granted to Dutt in 2013-14. Pabale has alleged that the DG-Prisons misused his powers while allowing the actor to visit home.
"The official has misused Rule 3 (1) of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules," argued Pabale's counsel, advocate Nikhil Chaudhary.
The rule in question states: "A prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for period exceeding one year but not exceeding five years, may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for every year of actual imprisonment undergone."
The HC has asked Chaudhary to bring the additional details on record within a week.
Pabale had filed the PIL last year, when Dutt was out on parole from December 2013 till March 2014.
The actor surrendered before the court in May 2013 and was granted furlough in October in the same year. The PIL said in December 2013 he was again given parole to attend to his ailing wife. He received two extensions to the parole thereafter, the petitioner added.
Dutt had once again come out on furlough on December 24, 2014, for 14 days. The same expired on January 8, 2015. However, he surrendered on January 10, after his application of extension for the same was rejected.
The HC has kept the PIL for hearing after three weeks.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}