1808CRWP350.17-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 350 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- Shri Ramdas Sitaram Maraskolhe, Aged
adult, Occ : Nil, R/o at Khanapur, Distt.
Wardha.
C-8735.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the
Deputy Inspector General (Jail), Central Jail,
Wardha Road, Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent of Police, Wardha.
3) The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Wardha.
4) The Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Talegaon, Wardha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.R.Gour, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Tembhare, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 18.08.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:27:03 :::
1808CRWP350.17-Judgment 2/3
2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison), Nagpur dated 13/02/2017 and seeks the furlough leave.
3. Shri Gour, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the application of the petitioner for furlough leave is wrongly rejected on the ground that the mother-in-law of the petitioner, who is ready to furnish surety under rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, would not be in a position to keep control over the petitioner. It is stated that the additional reason for rejecting the furlough leave is that on two earlier occasions, the petitioner had belatedly surrendered 18 days and 70 days after the expiry of parole leave.
4. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that on the earlier occasion also the mother-in-law of the petitioner, i.e. Smt.Yenubai Kumre had furnished the surety for the release of the petitioner on furlough and hence the first reason recorded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison) for rejecting the furlough leave of the petitioner does not appear to be just and proper. In regard to the second ground, one more opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner as on two earlier occasions though he had surrendered ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:27:03 ::: 1808CRWP350.17-Judgment 3/3 belatedly, he was not required to be brought to the prison by the police authorities. This time the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner would surrender on the due date.
5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13/02/2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave on furnishing surety as required by rule 6 of the Rules of 1959. The petitioner should be released on furlough leave within seven days from the date on which he furnishes the surety under rule 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The professional fees of the learned counsel for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.1,500/-. Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:27:03 :::