Dashrath Tukaram Bagul vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 1684 Bom

                                             {1}
                                                                      cr wp 184.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                             
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.184 OF 2016




                                                     
     Dashrath Tukaram Bagul
     (convict No.C-8173)
     Age: 72 years, occu: nil
     R/o Nashik Road Central Prison,




                                                    
     Nasik                                                             Petitioner

              Versus




                                         
     1        The State of Maharashtra,
              Through Deputy Inspector General (Prison)
                             
              Central Division, Aurangabad,
              District : Aurangabad

     2        The Additional Police Director General &
                            
              Deputy Inspector General (Prison)
              Maharashtra State, Pune - 1

     3        The Police Superintendent
              Nashik Road Central Prison
      


              Nashik                                                Respondents

Mr.Gajendra Jain advocate for the petitioner (appointed) Mr.K.S. Pawar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondents _______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.L. WADANE, JJ (Date : 20th APRIL, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision, at admission stage.

{2} cr wp 184.16.odt

3 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of refusal to grant

furlough leave, passed by respondent No.2, the Additional Police

Director General & Deputy Inspector General (Prison), Pune. The

reason for refusal to grant furlough is, late reporting in past after

availment of furlough leave on three occasions.

4 The petitioner is a life convict, undergoing imprisonment

since his arrest in the year 2006. On earlier three occasions, he

was released on furlough and he had reported late by 8 days, 58

days and 79 days respectively. On account of late reporting, the

petitioner has already been penalized by reduction in remission by

8 days, 232 days and 395 days respectively. Since the petitioner

has already been penalized for late reporting in past, he cannot be

deprived of his right to be released on furlough forever. There

cannot be controversy that to secure furlough, is a right of a

convict under Rule 3 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole)

Rules, 1959. The another circumstance that needs to be

considered is that, the petitioner is 72 years of age and is

suffering from bronchial Asthama. A medical certificate in that

regard is placed on record.

5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we

direct quashment of the impugned order passed by respondent

{3} cr wp 184.16.odt

No.2 on 10.11.2015 and direct respondent authorities to grant

furlough to the petitioner in pursuance of his application already

tendered forthwith, in accordance with Rules.

6 Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition is disposed of.

     7        There shall be no order as to costs.




                                      
     8        Mr. Jain, learned counsel appointed on behalf of the
                             

petitioner shall be paid legal remuneration of Rs.5,000/-.

                  (K.L. WADANE, J)                    (R.M.BORDE, J)
      
   



     vbd