Bombay High Court

MUEEN S/O. MOHD. YUSUF KAZIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MADHAV JAMDAR PRAVIN SHESHRAO PATIL

Holding

The order rejecting the furlough leave application is upheld because the petitioner had already been on furlough and surrendered, leaving no substantive issue for the writ.

Summary

The petitioner, Mueen, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order dated 17 January 2025 of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, which rejected his application for furlough leave. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the order was based on the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024. The respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner had already been granted furlough leave from 24 December 2025 to 1 February 2026 and had surrendered to prison authorities on 2 February 2026, and that any fresh application would be considered in accordance with law. The Court found that the petitioner’s request was moot as he had already completed the furlough period and surrendered, and therefore there was no ground to entertain the writ. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as there was nothing left to adjudicate.

Issues considered

What is the legality of the order rejecting the petitioner’s furlough leave application under the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024?
Does the petitioner’s prior furlough and subsequent surrender render the present writ petition infructuous?

Subjects

Article 226
Writ Petition
Furlough Leave
Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024
Prison Law
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                        902-WP-2948-2025.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    WRIT PETITION NO.2948 OF 2025
Mueen S/o. Mohd. Yusuf Kazi                              ...Petitioner
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                          ...Respondents
                               ——————
Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Amit Waykool &
Sakshi Jankar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Naik, APP, for the Respondent – State.
M. M. More & S. H. Kumbhar, Liaison Oicers, present.
                               ——————
                                  Coram:     Madhav J. Jamdar &
                                             Pravin S. Patil, JJ.
                                  Date:      March 24, 2026

P.C.:

1.      In this Writ Petition iled under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated

17th January 2025 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,

Pune, by which the Petitioner’s application seeking furlough leave has

been rejected.

2.      It is the contention of Mr. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner, that the impugned Order has been passed on the basis of

the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough And Parole) Rules, 2024, which came

into efect on 2nd December 2024.

3.      However, Mr. Naik, learned APP, states that the Petitioner was

released on furlough leave for the period from 24th December 2025 to



Arjun                              1 of 2
                                                       902-WP-2948-2025.doc


1st February 2026. He submits that the Petitioner surrendered to

Prison Authorities on 2nd February 2026. He further submits that, if a

fresh application for furlough leave is iled, the same will be considered

in accordance with law.

4.      Accordingly, nothing survives in the Writ Petition and the same is

disposed of.



     [Pravin S. Patil, J.]                   [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                             2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…