Mohd Rafique @ Bablu Abdul Sattar ... vs Deputy Inspector General ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1510 Bom

     CWP 128.16.[J]odt                             1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                  
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                          
                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.128 OF 2016


     Mohd. Rafique @ Bablu Abdul Sattar,
     Convict No.C/8841,




                                                         
     Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur.                  ..             Petitioner

                                    .. Versus ..




                                              
     1]     Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East),
            Nagpur.          
     2]     The Superintendent Central Prison,
            Nagpur.                                        ..             Respondents
                            
                           ..........
     Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the petitioner,
     Ms. R.V. Kaliya, A.P.P. for the respondents.
                           ..........
      


                                    CORAM :  B.R. GAVAI  AND
   



                                             MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 13, 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 furlough.

3. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner has also approached

this court by way of Criminal Writ Petition No.914/2015. Vide the

judgment and order dated 17.12.2015, this court has observed that the

petitioner can be released on furlough leave if he puts in two years of

actual imprisonment. The court has, therefore, directed the Competent

Authority to pass fresh order in the light of observations, within fifteen

days from the date of communication of the order. The application is

rejected on the ground that in view of Notification dated 1.12.2015

unless a prisoner is completed three years of imprisonment, he is not

entitled to be released on furlough.

4.

The application filed by the present petitioner for releasing on

furlough much prior to 1.12.2015. Not only that but the Division Bench

of this court in the order dated 17.12.2015 itself observed that the

petitioner would be entitled to be released on furlough if he has

completed two years imprisonment.

5. In that view of the matter, we find that impugned order is not

sustainable, the same is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is

directed to be released on furlough in accordance with the provisions of

law after complying with the requirements as prescribed under the law.

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

                              JUDGE                                          JUDGE
     Gulande