1 wp918.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.918 OF 2017
Mujaffar @ Ali Ramzan Ali,
Convict No.C/9185,
Presently at Central Prison,
Nagpur. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Deputy Inspector General
(Prisons) (East), Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:46:10 :::
2 wp918.17.odt
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 4th December, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dt.4.9.2017 passed by the D.I.G. (Prisons), Nagpur.
3. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for five years at Central Prison, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has undergone approximately two years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court at Nagpur vide Judgment and order dt.27.10.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.208 of 2014. ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:46:10 :::
3 wp918.17.odt
4. On 18.7.2017, the petitioner applied for grant of furlough leave. However, the Competent Authority, by an order dt.4.9.2017, rejected the same. Hence, the present petition.
5. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing reply.
6. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner is facing another trial and therefore, he is not entitled for furlough leave.
7. Heard Mr.Mir Nagman Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents. From the perusal of the impugned order and reply, it appears that the impugned order is mechanically passed by respondent no.1 without noting the factual position. In para no.1 of the reply, it is stated that " the present petitioner not availed furlough or parole leave up til now". But, in the impugned order dt.4.9.2017, in para 5, it is stated that " the convict when earlier was released on leave, then he was required to be brought back by Police to prison after 862 days. Reply filed by the respondents does not show that the ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:46:10 ::: 4 wp918.17.odt petitioner has availed any leave. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order is passed mechanically. Pendency of another Criminal Case is not a bar under the Rules to refuse furlough leave. The petitioner is eligible for furlough leave. For the first time, he has applied for furlough leave on 18.7.2017. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, we allow the petition.
8. Respondent No.1 is directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave of 21 days on the following conditions :
a) the petitioner shall furnish surety of his nearest relative.
b) the petitioner shall report to the nearest Police Station on every Saturday in between 10 to 11 a.m.
c) he shall surrender to the prison on the due date.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:46:10 ::: 5 wp918.17.odt ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:46:10 :::