Narayan Raghobaji Kothe vs Dy. Inspector General Of Prisons, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 31 Bom

       cwp1020.15                                                                          1
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH




                                                                                   
                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.  1020  OF  2015




                                                           
      Shri Narayan Raghobaji Kothe,
      aged about 49 years, convicted
      Prisoner bearing Prisoner No.




                                                          
      C/8012, Nagpur Central Jail,
      Nagpur, r/o within the limits of
      Police Station, Khapa, Badegaon,
      District - Nagpur.                                     ...   PETITIONER




                                             
                                   Versus
                             
      1. Deputy Inspector General of
         Prisons, East Nagpur Division,
         Wardha Road, Nagpur.
                            
      2. The Superintendent,
         Central Prison, Wardha Road,
         Nagpur.                                             ...   RESPONDENTS
      
   



      Shri Rohan R. Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, APP for the respondents.
                         .....





                                        CORAM :      B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                     V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

FEBRUARY 24, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

finally with the consent of parties.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the authorities below have erroneously rejected the application

filed on behalf of the petitioner for furlough. He submitted that the

petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough leave.

3. In a contrast, the learned APP submits that in view of

the reply filed on behalf of the authorities, it is clear that the

petitioner on previous occasion, when released on parole or

furlough leave, surrendered late and therefore, he is not entitled to

be released, as claimed by him.

4. The reply filed on behalf of the authorities show that

on previous occasion, when the petitioner was released on parole

leave in the year 2011, he surrendered himself late, however, by

two days only and at that point of time, he was not required to be

brought to prison by the police authorities. Though in 2012, when

he was released on furlough leave, he was required to be brought

to prison by the police authorities, however, subsequently the

authorities considered his parole leave favourably and he was

granted parole leave and at that time he surrendered himself late

by 97 days. Lastly, in 2014, when the petitioner was released on

parole leave, his parole leave was to expire on 11.03.2015,

however, the petitioner himself surrendered on 10.03.2015 i.e.

prior to expiry of parole period.

5. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner

to release him on furlough leave has to be considered favourably

and it is accordingly considered favourably, resulting into making

the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (3) of the petition.

6. Hence, the present Criminal Writ Petition is allowed

accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

               JUDGE                                                     JUDGE
                            
                                                 ******
      

      *GS.