1 jg.cri. wp 1078.17.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1078 OF 2017
Vasudeo Ramchandra Thakare,
Convict No. C/6525, Aged 39 years,
Occ. Nil, Confined at Central Prison,
Nagpur. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
(1) State of Maharashtra through
Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Eastern Region, Nagpur.
(2) The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. S. D. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 19-12-2017
JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-7-2017 passed by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:58 ::: 2 jg.cri. wp 1078.17.odt applied for furlough leave. His application came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner was earlier released on 24-8-2005 on furlough leave. He did not surrender to the prison on due date. He was arrested by police after 2573 days and brought to the prison. Therefore, his application came to be rejected as per Rule 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
3. Heard learned counsel Ms. Wankhede for the petitioner and Mrs. Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
4. Perused the impugned order. As per chart given in the reply, it is clear that the petitioner was released on furlough leave on 24-8-2005. He did not surrender on due date and he was required to be arrested by police after 2573 days. Therefore, it is clear that for long time, the petitioner not reported to the prison and police authority was required to arrest him and brought to the prison. Therefore, as per Rule 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, the application of the petitioner is rightly rejected. Hence, we do not find any merit in the petition. In the result, writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:58 :::