Vinod Haridas Meshram (In Jail) vs The D.I.G. Prisons (E) (R), Nagpur ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 440 Bom

                                                                                          wp953.15
                                                  1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                       
                               NAGPUR.




                                                               
               CRIMINAL    WRIT    PETITION   NO.    953    OF     2015




                                                              
    Vinod Haridas Meshram,
    Convict No. C-8850,
    Presently lodged in Mandal
    ¾ Nagpur Central Prison, 
    Nagpur.                                                                 PETITIONER.




                                               
                              ig               VERSUS
                            
    1] The D. I. G. Prison (E)(R),
    Nagpur, Tah. & Distt. Nagpur. 

    2] The Superintendent, 
      

    Central Prison, Nagpur,
    Tah. & Distt. Nagpur. 
   



    3] The Commissioner of Police
    (Crime), Gondia, Tah. & Distt.
    Gondia.                                                                 RESPONDENTS.

Shri Nagsen R. Mankar, Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. N. R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI AND A. S. CHANDURKAR JJ.

                                         Dated    :     MARCH  08, 2016.


    ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B. R. Gavai J.)


                  Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     Heard   finally   with 

consent of learned counsel for the parties.

wp953.15

The petitioner has approached this Court on the rejection of his

application for grant of furlough. The applicant has been convicted for an

offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. The

application is rejected on the ground that the wife of the applicant has

opposed the grant of furlough on the ground that the murder committed by

the applicant was on account of suspicion of her illicit relations with the

deceased.

2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's

father is willing to stand surety and he is in a position to control the activities

of the petitioner. He further submits that the wife of the petitioner is residing

at village Dongargaon and the petitioner's father resides at village Palandur.

It is further submitted that distance between the two villages is of 25 Kms.

This is the first application of the applicant after his conviction. It could thus

be seen that the rejection of the application is on the basis of anticipation by

his wife that some illegal activities may be committed by the petitioner. In

any case the apprehension expressed by the petitioner's wife can be taken

care of. Hence, we pass the following order:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and

set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on furlough by accepting

the surety of his father.

It is further directed that applicant shall not enter village

Dongargaon during the period when he is on furlough. He is directed to

report Chichgad Police Station twice a week. Rule is made absolute in the

wp953.15

aforesaid terms.

Fees for the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the

petitioner are quantified at Rs. 1500/-.

                                    JUDGE                               JUDGE



    svk