Arvind Anuplal Potdar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 1853 Bom

                                                                               Cr.WP 333/16   
      
                                                   -  1 -




                                                                                    
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                        
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD                                                  
                                          

                                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.333/2016




                                                       
                                        Arvind s/o Anuplal Potdar,
                                        age  yrs.,occu.Prisoner Convict No.144,
                                        r/o at Zanjara Post Mahadipur,




                                               
                                        Tq.Gogari Jamalpur Dist.Khagadia,
                                    ig  State: Bihar, at present in Open
                                        Prison at Visapur Dist.Ahmednagar.  
                                                          ...Petitioner..
                                  
                             Versus


                              1]        The State of Maharashtra.
      


                              2]        The Deputy Inspector General of 
                                        Prison / West 6th Division, Pune.
   



                              3]        The Superintendent of Open Prison
                                        at Visapur.  Dist.Ahmednagar. 
                                                          ...Respondents... 





                              .....
    Smt.B.B. Gunjal, Advocate appointed for petitioner.
    Shri D.R. Kale, APP for respondent nos.1 to 3. 
                              .....





      

                                                 CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
                                                         P.R. BORA, JJ. 

DATE: 26.04.2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Borde, J.) :

Cr.WP 333/16

- 2 -

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken

for final disposal at admission stage.

2] An application tendered by the petitioner for

release on furlough leave on execution of Personal Bond

has not been considered favourably and as such the

petitioner has approached this Court. A request in that

regard has been turned down by the respondent no.2 by

order dated 1.1.2016.

3] The petitioner states that he is a life convict

undergoing sentence of imprisonment since 6.12.2001. The

petitioner has undergone the period of imprisonment of

about 19 years and 3 months inclusive of the period of

remission. The petitioner has been categorized as

Category 02(B) and is required to be lodged in prison for

about two years. A proposal for premature release of the

petitioner on completion of 22 years of imprisonment is

already forwarded to the State Government and the

decision is awaited.

4] The petitioner contends that since the date of

his arrest and during the course of imprisonment, he has

Cr.WP 333/16

- 3 -

never availed the furlough leave since he could not

tender the surety. The petitioner places reliance on the

Full Bench judgment in the matter of Dipak Sudhakar

Wakalekar v. State of Maharashtra & others reported at

2011 CRI.L.J. 3263 and contends that in view of Rule 6 of

the Rules of 1959, a convict confined in Open Prison can

be released on furlough by sanctioning authority by

dispensing with the requirement of execution of bond by

the relatives. It is not a matter of dispute that the

petitioner is lodged in Open Prison and is entitled to be

released on furlough.

5] In view of above, the request made by the

petitioner for his release on furlough needs favourable

consideration. The order dated 1.1.2016 issued by the

respondent no.2 refusing the request of the petitioner

for his release on furlough on execution of P.R. bond is

quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to

release the petitioner on furlough leave on execution of

P.R. Bond with cash surety that may be determined by

releasing authority, within the prescription of relevant

rules, expeditiously. Since the petitioner is lodged in

jail for long duration of more than 14 years, the amount

Cr.WP 333/16

- 4 -

earned by him during jail term must have been deposited

with jail authorities. Said amount can be considered as

cash surety.

6] Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall

be no order as to costs.

7] Smt.B.B. Gunjal, learned counsel appointed to

represent the petitioner, shall be paid legal

remuneration of Rs.5,000/-.

                 (P.R. BORA, J.)                            (R.M. BORDE, J.) 
      
   






    ndk/cr2641636.doc