1 CRIWP111.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Daddu @ Swapnil S/o Rahul Meshram,
Aged about major, Convict No. C-8515,
Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] Superintendent,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
2] The D.I.G. Prison, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. S. Band, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. N. R. Tripathy, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE and
MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 06, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties. 2] By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.1, dated ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:37 ::: 2 CRIWP111.17.odt 31.01.2017, thereby rejecting the application for grant of furlough leave.
3] The petitioner/convict, who is presently lodged in Central Prison, Nagpur, is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as per the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 4] The petitioner had applied for grant of furlough leave to the respondent no.2 on 04.1.2017. The respondent no.2 authority rejected the same vide order dated 31.01.2017 due to adverse police report and on the ground that the petitioner when earlier released had not surrendered on due date and was arrested and brought back by the police authorities to the prison.
5] We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and have examined the record.
6] Mr. Band, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:37 :::
3 CRIWP111.17.odt
submitted that the respondent-authority has wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner. The respondent authority pointed out the judgment of this Court in the case of Sitaram Rajaram Deokar .vs. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, East Nagpur and another, reported in 2014 All M.R. (Cri) 1309 and submitted that in view of this reported judgment, the petitioner is entitled for grant of furlough leave.
7] Mrs. Tripathy, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the respondent- authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. She submitted that on earlier occasion, the petitioner was released on furlough leave, but not surrendered on due date. Therefore, he is not entitled for furlough leave.
8] Perusal of the material placed on record, more particularly the impugned order shows that the petitioner was released on 28.8.2013 on furlough leave, but he surrendered late by 28 days. It further shows that on 03.6.2015, again the petitioner was released on parole leave and he was required to brought back to the prison by police late by three days.
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:37 :::
4 CRIWP111.17.odt 9] In Rajaram Deokar's case (supra) relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has observed that Rule 4 (10) is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, this Court directed the authority to release the petitioner/convict on furlough leave. 10] In the present case, the petitioner was lastly brought back in the prison by police late by three days. In view of the reported judgment cited supra in Sitaram Deokar's case, the petitioner is entitled for furlough leave. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.
11] In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 31.01.2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 authority is directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave for a period of 28 days within two weeks by following the procedure of law and on usual conditions.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:11:37 :::