Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O Kashinath Ingle (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 16 March, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 CWP.27.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 27 OF 2016 & 57 OF 2016.
1] CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 27 OF 2016.
Sachin s/o Kashinath Ingle,
(In Jail), Aged about 26 yrs.
Convict No. C-8155,
Central Prison Nagpur. ...... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons, Nagpur
(E) Region, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur,
2] The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ..... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. N.H. Samundre, Advocate for petitioner,
Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.
2] CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 57 OF 2016.
Amit s/o Suresh Gujar,
Convict No. C- 8154,
Mandal no. 3, Detained
in Central Prison, Nagpur. ...... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] Deputy Inspector General
of Prisons (ER), Nagpur,
2] The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ..... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:12:12 :::
2 CWP.27.16.odt
Ms. D.V. Sapkal, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner,
Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR
, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned
Counsel for the parties finally by consent.
2] The facts in both the petitions are almost similar and both the
petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts
are being taken from Writ Petition No. 27/2016.
3] The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.2016
passed by the respondent no.1 thereby refusing to release the
petitioner on furlough leave. In the impugned order, it has been stated
that as on an earlier occasion after being released on furlough, the
petitioner was required to be arrested, he was not entitled for being
subsequently granted furlough leave.
4] Mr. N.H. Samundre, learned Advocate for petitioner,
3 CWP.27.16.odt
submitted that the respondent no.1 was not justified in rejecting the
application for grant of furlough on the ground that the petitioner was
required to be arrested on an earlier occasion when he was so
released. Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Raju @
Rajabhau Bhagwantrao Wankhede .vs. The D.I.G. Prisons (E)(R) &
another reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1834, it is submitted that even
if on an earlier occasion the convict is required to be arrested for not
returning back after completion of furlough leave, that would be a
circumstance to be considered by the authorities while considering the
subsequent application. He submitted that there were sufficient
reasons for the petitioner to overstay the furlough leave and these
aspects have not been considered by the respondent no. 1 while
rejecting the application. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is
entitled to grant of furlough.
5] Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondents, relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the
authority was justified in refusing to grant furlough leave as the
petitioner was required to be arrested and brought back to prison after a
period of 36 days from the expiry of furlough leave.
6] Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the authority
4 CWP.27.16.odt
has rejected the leave application on the ground of earlier arrest of the
petitioner on account of overstaying the leave. In Raju Wankhede
(cited supra) the Division Bench of this Court observed that it is for the
authorities to consider all attending circumstances and also the aspect
as to the reasons why the convict had overstayed and was required to
be arrested. In the present case, according to the petitioner, though he
has assigned reasons for his overstay, the said reasons have not been
considered by the respondent no. 1 while passing the impugned order.
7] In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 4.1.2016 impugned
in Criminal Writ Petition No. 27/2016 and the order dated 29.6.2015
impugned in Criminal Writ Petition No. 57/2016 are quashed and set
aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the application for
grant of furlough moved by the petitioners and also examine the
sufficiency of reasons assigned by the petitioners for overstaying the
furlough leave leading to their arrest. The applications be considered
and decided within a period of three weeks from today.
8] The Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in
the above terms with no order as to costs.
5 CWP.27.16.odt
Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the
petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 57/16 are quantified at Rs.1500/-.
JUDGE. J
UDGE.
J.
