Bombay High Court
Pravin Awdhut Mendhe (In Jail) vs The Superintendent, Central ... on 30 August, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp447.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 447 OF 2016.
Pravin Awdhut Mendhe,
Aged aduit, resident of at Wadgaon,
Post Station, Wadgaon,
Distt Yavatmal.
(Presently at Central Prison
Amravati. C-3514)
ig ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Amravati.
2. The Deputy Inspector of General
of Prisons, (Eastern Region)
Nagpur.
3. State of Maharashtra,
through Addl. Director General
of Police and Inspector General of
Prison and Correctional Services,
Pune. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. D.S. Lambat, Advocate (Appointed) for Petitioner.
Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.P.P. for Respondents.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 30, 2016.
Judgment wp447.16
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri D.S. Lambat, learned counsel (appointed) for the
petitioner and Shri V.A. Thakare, learned A.P.P. for respondents.
Considering the nature of controversy involved and with consent of parties,
Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. Rule is therefore made
returnable forthwith.
2. Furlough leave has been denied to the petitioner on the ground
that when he was released on last occasion i.e. on 05.12.2011, he has
reported late by 640 days.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that for this
voluntarily late reporting, punishment is already imposed. He adds that a
proper surety is being furnished and hence, rejection is unsustainable.
4. Learned A.P.P. is relying on the reply-affidavit. He points out
previous conduct as also provisions, to urge that in view of the late reporting
and punishment, furlough cannot be granted.
Judgment wp447.16
5. We have perused the papers. Petitioner appears to be in jail since
long and he was released first on furlough in 2007. He reported back on due
date. Thereafter he was released on 01.01.2010 and was required to be
arrested and brought back after 275 days. As a punishment, permanent cut
in remission appears to have been sanctioned. Thereafter he sought
furlough leave again on 10.03.2015, and it has been rejected on 14.05.2015.
6. In so far as Parole leave is concerned, he was released on Parole
leave on 23.03.2009 and reported back himself after delay of 37 days and
111 days of remission cut has been sanctioned as punishment for it. He was
again released on 05.12.2011 and came back himself after delay of 640 days
on 06.11.2013. For this late reporting, canteen facility has been
discontinued for a period of one month. He sought parole again on
01.07.2015 and it has been rejected on 03.10.2015.
7. The impugned order dated 30.01.2016, is on application moved by
the petitioner in November, 2015. Because of above reasons, an inference of
inability of surety to control petitioner has been drawn and furlough has
been rejected.
Judgment wp447.16
8. We find the inference of inability of surety misconceived.
Petitioner has reported back himself, though belatedly. He was required to
arrested only once i.e. on 01.11.2010. Thereafter he was released on
furlough leave on 05.12.2011.
9. In this situation, subject to obtaining appropriate cash security as
also security from petitioner and an independent surety for timely return of
the petitioner, we direct his release on furlough. If the petitioner submits
necessary sureties, security, undertaking and bond to the satisfaction of
respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks from today, respondent shall
take necessary steps to release him on furlough. They shall also put a
condition of his reporting once in every two days at local police station.
10. In view of above, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made
absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
11. Fees for the learned counsel (appointed) for the petitioner are
quantified at Rs. 1500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Judgment wp447.16
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 01.09.2016
