Mukesh S/O Ramaji Bhoyar (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1511 Bom

                                      1                                                                      CWP.1021.15.odt

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




                                                                                                         
                        




                                                                            
                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION  NO. 1021 OF 2015


         Mukesh s/o Ramaji Bhoyar,




                                                                           
         Convict No. C-8005, Central
         Prison, Nagpur.                                                         ....             PETITIONER.

                           ....Versus....




                                                        
         1]  The State of Maharashtra, through 
                                
             Inspector General of Prison,
             Maharashtra, Pune,
                               
         2] The Deputy Inspector General of 
            Prison, (Eastern Region), Nagpur,

         3] The Superintendent of Prison,
      


            Central Prison, Nagpur.                                              .....        RESPONDENTS
   



         Ms. M.S. Hiwase, Advocate (appointed)  for petitioner.
         Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.





                               CORAM :  B.R. GAVAI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 13, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R. GAVAI, J.)

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned

Counsel for the parties finally by consent.

                                       2                                                                      CWP.1021.15.odt

         2]               The   application   of   the   petitioner   was   rejected   on   the




                                                                                                         

ground that the petitioner was required to be arrested since he did

not report back to the prison on the due dates. The perusal of the

affidavit-in-reply would reveal that on one occasion the petitioner was

arrested only after ten days and on the other occasion after 88 days.

However, after those two incidents the petitioner has again been

released on furlough on two occasions and on both the occasions he

has surrendered himself. In that view of the matter, we find that the

petitioner would be entitled to be released on furlough.

3] The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The petitioner is,

therefore, directed to be released on furlough for a period of two

weeks after following the procedure in accordance with the law.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the

petitioner are quantified at Rs.1500/-.

                         JUDGE.                                                              J
                                                                                               UDGE.
        J.