Sachin Suresh Taklikar (In Jail) vs The D.I.G. Prisons (E) (R), Nagpur ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1246 Bom

     CWP 71.16.[J]odt                              1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.71 OF 2016




                                                       
     Sachin Suresh Taklikar,
     Convict No.C-6622,
     District Prison Buldhana,




                                                      
     Buldhana.                                          ..             Petitioner

                                    .. Versus ..




                                              
     1]     The D.I.G. Prison (E) (R),
            District-Nagpur.
     2]
                             
            The Superintendent,
            District Prison Buldhana,
            Buldhana.
                            
     3]     The Superintendent,
            Central Prison, Nagpur.
            Nagpur.                                     ..             Respondents
      


                           ..........
     Mr. Tarun Parmar, Advocate for Petitioner,
   



     Ms. N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for Respondents.
                           ..........

                                    CORAM :  B.R. GAVAI  AND





                                             MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 05, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.R. GAVAI, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by

rejection of his application for grant of furlough leave.

3. The application is specifically rejected on the ground that in

the year 2005, when the applicant was released on furlough, he was

required to be brought back to the prison after 156 days.

4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raju @

Rajabhau Bhagwantrao Wankhede .vs. The D.I.G. Prisons (E) (R ) &

another, reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1834, has taken a view that

merely because a prisoner was required to be arrested, cannot be a

ground to deny him the right of furlough. The Bench has taken a view

that the case has to be decided on the facts of each case.

5. In the present case, it could thus be seen that though in the

year 2005, the petitioner was required to be arrested, thereafter, on

seven occasions, he has been released on furlough. On each of the

occasions, he has surrendered himself belatedly by four or five days.

The petitioner must have already been penalized for the late surrender

in accordance with the Prisons Rules.

6. Taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner that

after 2005 he has been regularly surrendering himself and further that

the police report is positive, we are inclined to allow the petition. The

impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to

be released on furlough leave for a period of two weeks, after following

the prescribed procedure of law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid

terms with no order as to costs.

                              JUDGE                                          JUDGE
     Gulande