Shankar Ganpat Neware (In Jail) vs The D.I.G. Prison (E) (R), Nagpur ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 215 Bom

                                          1




                                                                                   
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :

                              NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.




                                                           
                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1011 OF 2015




                                                          
    Shankar Ganpat Neware,
    C-3368, Central Prison,
    Amravati.                                  ....    PETITIONER.




                                              
                      -VERSUS -


    1. D.I.G., Prison (E)(R),
       Nagpur.
                                  
                                 
    2. The Superintendent,
       Central Prison,
       Amravati.                                      ....    RESPONDENTS.

                               ....
      


    Ms. Neerja G. Chaubey Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner.
    Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents.
   



                                  ....

                     CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

DATED : 01st March, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per V.M. Deshpande, J.) :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

the consent of Advocate Ms. Chaube for the petitioner and learned APP

for the respondents.

2. Request made by the petitioner on 28.6.2015 before the

authorities below for grant of furlough was rejected on 16.11.2015. The

reason cited for the same that previously when the petitioner was released

on parole or furlough, on every occasion the petitioner surrendered late.

However, it appears that at no point of time the petitioner was required to

be brought back by the police. He has surrendered himself. Though on

previous occasions the petitioner reported back to the jail late, the

authorities below have considered his prayer for grant of parole/furlough.

In that view of the matter, impugned order is required to be set aside.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16-10/11-2015 is set aside.

Petitioner be released on furlough by the authorities below after following

due requirements. Petition is allowed.

Charges for counsel appointed to represent the petitioner are

quantified at Rs.1500/-.

                                       JUDGE                  JUDGE






     /TA/