Ravindrasingh @ Bunty S/O. ... vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 7341 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2017

Bombay High Court
Ravindrasingh @ Bunty S/O. ... vs Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 20 September, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
 2009CRWP811.17-Judgment                                                                        1/2


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.  811   OF   2017

 PETITIONER :-                        Ravindrasingh   @   Bunty   S/o   Rajendrasingh
                                      Anand,   Aged   about   41   years,   R/o   Plot
                                      No.860,   Chambar   Nala,   Boudha   Nagar,
                                      Nagpur.
                                      (C/9441, Central Prison, Nagpur)

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1) Deputy   Inspector   General   of   Prison   (East
                                    Region), Nagpur. 
                                 2) Superintendent   of   Jail,   Central   Prison,
                                    Nagpur. 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Ms S.B.Khobragade, counsel for the petitioner.
        Mr. P.S.Tembhare, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    M. G. GIRATKAR
                                                                   ,   JJ.

DATED : 20.09.2017 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.

2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the D.I.G. (Prisons), Nagpur dated 17/08/2017, rejecting the ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:44:59 ::: 2009CRWP811.17-Judgment 2/2 application for furlough leave solely on the ground that the name of the surety is not mutated in respect of the residential house which is his ancestral property.

3. We do not appreciate the reason recorded by the D.I.G. (Prisons), Nagpur in the impugned order for rejecting the furlough leave application. The impugned order itself records that the house in which the relative of the petitioner resides and is ready to furnish surety, is his ancestral property. If that be so, only because the name of the relative is not mutated in the revenue records, the application for furlough leave could not have been rejected.

4. Since the impugned order cannot be sustained, we allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned order. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave within seven days from the date on which the relative of the petitioner furnishes surety, as is required by rule 6 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

                        JUDGE                                              JUDGE 
 KHUNTE




::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017                                ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:44:59 :::