Chandu Bapuji Medappalliwar (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Deputy ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8965 Bom
Judgement Date : 22 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Chandu Bapuji Medappalliwar (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Deputy ... on 22 November, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
                                 1                            wp938.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.938 OF 2017



  Chandu Bapuji Medappalliwar,
  Convict No.C/8813, Aged 50 
  years, Occ. Nil, Confined at
  Central Prison, Nagpur.                   ..........      PETITIONER


          // VERSUS //


  1. State of Maharashtra,
      Through Deputy Inspector
      General, Central Prison,
      Eastern Region, Nagpur.

  2. The Superintendent,
      Central Prison,
      Nagpur.                                   ..........       RESPONDENTS


  ____________________________________________________________  
               Ms S.D.Wankhede, Advocate for the Petitioner.
            Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
  ____________________________________________________________


::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:53 :::
                                     2                                 wp938.17.odt




                                     CORAM     :  R.K.DESHPANDE 
                                                          AND
                                                          M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATED : 22nd November, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :

1. The Criminal Appeal is admitted and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 and has also prayed to direct the respondent no.1 to release him on furlough for 28 days.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for furlough leave on 13.7.2017. His application came to be rejected on 23.8.2017 on the ground that appeal is pending against his conviction. Report of concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gadchiroli is against the petitioner. He was in a habit of surrendering late.

::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:53 :::

3 wp938.17.odt

4. Heard Ms S.D.Wankhede, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the impugned order. The impugned order shows that the application for furlough of the petitioner came to be rejected only on the ground that he did not surrender on the due dates when he was released on 23.12.2014, 30.9.2010, 13.6.2016, 4.5.2017 as per the chart given below :

Sr. Particulars Date of Release Due for surrender Remarks No.

1 Furlough 23.12.2014 Not surrendered on Arrested by the police leave due date authority and brought back to the prison after period of 18 days i.e. on 25.01.2015 and offence u/s.224 of IPC was registered but bail is granted.

2       Parole Leave      30.09.2010       Not surrendered on   Surrendered himself but
                                           due date             late by 55 days i.e. on
                                                                08.02.2011.
3       Parole Leave      13.06.2016       Not surrendered on   Surrendered himself but
                                           due date             late by 01 days i.e. on
                                                                13.09.2016.
4       Parole Leave      04.05.2017       Surrendered on due Surrendered himself on
                                           date               due date i.e. on 04.06.2017




    ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:53 :::
                                     4                                 wp938.17.odt


5. On the last occasion i.e. on 4.5.2017, the petitioner surrendered on the due date. Therefore, this cannot be a ground to reject his application. From the perusal of Police report, it could be seen that it is favourable to the petitioner. The report of Dy.S.P., Gadchiroli shows that the surety is ready to take surety of the petitioner and there is no objection to release the petitioner on furlough. It appears that the report of Dy.S.P., Gadchiroli is not taken into consideration by respondent no.1.

6. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and that cannot be a ground to reject the application for furlough. Filing of appeal against the conviction is statutory right of a convict and on that ground, he cannot be denied furlough leave. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order.

// ORDER // The petition is allowed.

::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:53 :::

5 wp938.17.odt The impugned order dt.23.8.2017 passed by respondent no.1 is hereby quashed and set aside.

Respondent No.1 is directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave of 28 days after his furnishing surety of nearest relatives.

Petitioner is directed to report twice in a week i.e. on Wednesday and Saturday to Police Station, Chamorshi.

He shall surrender on the due date to the prison.

                                      JUDGE                          JUDGE
   



  [jaiswal]




::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017                                ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:53 :::
                                6               wp938.17.odt




::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017       ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:53 :::