Bombay High Court
Arun S/O Gulab Gawli (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General ... on 2 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
cwp112.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2016
Arun s/o Gulab Gawli,
C/8535, aged about 64 years,
r/o Gitai Society, Dagdi Chawl,
Baburao Jagtap Marg,
Byculla (W), Mumbai - 11.
presently at Nagpur
Central Prison, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Deputy Inspector General
(Prisons)(East), Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-3, Bawla Compound,
Byculla, Mumbai 400 027. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Shri Mir Nagman Ali,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.B. Ahirkar, APP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
MARCH 02, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of parties.
2. Shri Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Shri Mir Nagman
Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
action cannot stand to the scrutiny of law in view of the fact that
there is no foundation to the adverse police report.
3. Shri Ahirkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the respondents, supported the impugned order and also submitted
on the basis of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, that
the nature of police verification report is adverse and the petitioner
is a prime member of a Mumbai Based Notorious criminal gang.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in jail after his
conviction dated 31.08.2012. At no point of time, he is released on
furlough. On the last occasion, when he applied for parole leave,
his prayer was rejected and, therefore, he was required to approach
this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 364 of 2015. The
said writ petition was opposed by the State by pointing out that the
petitioner being a prime member of criminal gang, there is a
possibility that the petitioner may commit cognizable offence.
5. However, perusal of the order passed by this Court
shows that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon
instructions, made a statement before this Court that for drawing
such inference, the respondents do not have any record, after the
petitioner's arrest on conviction, which would be adverse to his
claim for grant of parole leave. Considering the said statement and
noticing that there is no adverse material, the petitioner was
released on parole.
6. It is also not in dispute that when the petitioner was
availing parole leave, during that period, he has not committed any
cognizable offence. Further, after the expiry of parole period, he
himself surrendered before the jail authorities. The petition is
opposed by the State authorities on the ground that the petitioner
is a prime member of Mumbai Based Notorious criminal gang and,
therefore, there is an apprehension in the mind of authorities that if
he is released on furlough leave, there is a possibility that he may
commit a cognizable offence. For such an apprehension, there
should be some foundation. Mere apprehension is not sufficient to
deny the otherwise entitlement to a convict.
7. In the present case, the reply sans such foundation and
no material is placed before this Court in support thereof even
during the course of the argument by the learned APP appearing
for the authorities.
8. In that view of the matter, criminal writ petition needs
to be allowed. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on
furlough leave by the authorities after due compliances by the
petitioner.
9. The petitioner is directed to report Police Station at
Agripada, Mumbai, twice a week i.e. on every Tuesday and
Saturday between 3.00 and 5.00 PM, during the period he will be
availing furlough leave and shall surrender before the Jail
Authority after the expiry of furlough period on due date.
10. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
