Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Harilal Rammanahor Chamar (In ... vs The D.I.G. Prison (E) (R), Nagpur ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4384 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 4384 Bom
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2016

Bombay High Court
Harilal Rammanahor Chamar (In ... vs The D.I.G. Prison (E) (R), Nagpur ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
                                                                                                                                                wp283-16
                                                                                  1




                                                                                                                                            
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                                                                        
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.283 OF 2016




                                                                                                       
    Hiralal Rammanohar Chamar,
    Aged about 63 years, 
    R/o Khaola, P.S. Kothi, 
    Dist. Satna, Presently at 
    Central Jail, Nagpur.




                                                                                 
    Convict No. C-8747                                                  ....                                         ...                      Petitioner.
                                                    
                                                ..Versus..

    1.  Deputy Inspector General (Prisons)(E) (R),
                                                   
        Nagpur. Tah. & Dist. Nagpur. 

    2.  The Superintendent, 
        Central Prison, Nagpur. 
           


        Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.                                           ...                                            ...         Respondents.
        



    .......................................................................................................................................................
    Mr. A.A. Pannase, Advocate (appointed)  for petitioner.
    Mrs. Tiwari, APP for respondents. 
    .......................................................................................................................................................





                                                CORAM                  :  B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, 
                                                                                                         JJ.

                                                DATE                         nd  August, 2016.
                                                                       :  2

    JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent

of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the

rejection of his application for grant of furlough.

.....2/-

wp283-16

3. The application is rejected on two grounds - (i) that if the

petitioner is released on furlough, there is a possibility of breach of peace and

tranquility and (ii) that the surety provided by the petitioner is not

competent.

4. In so far as the first ground is concerned, we find that the ground

is totally irrelevant. This is for the first time the petitioner is seeking release

on furlough and there is no such material on record to support the contention

of the respondents.

5. In so far as second ground that the surety is not competent is

concerned, it is not stated as to on what count the surety is not competent.

In any case the petitioner could have been directed to arrange surety before

his release on furlough.

6. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the writ

petition. The petitioner is directed to be released on furlough for a period of

two weeks after following the procedure prescribed in law and after having

furnished competent surety. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Fees

to be paid to the appointed counsel is quantified at Rs.1,500/-.

                              JUDGE                                JUDGE 
    Hirekhan



                                                                                                   .....3/-




                                                                                         wp283-16





                                                                                     
                                                             
                                        CERTIFICATE


I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order.

Uploaded by : R.B. Hirekhan. Uploaded on : 21-07-2016.

P.A.

.....4/-

wp283-16

...../-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter