Gururaj Bhimappa Barikai ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 5237 Bom

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 910 OF 2016




                                                                                 
    Gururaj Bhimappa Barikai,




                                                         
    Age : Major, Occu. Prisoner
    C. No. 4823, District Open Jail
    Paithan, District Aurangabad                                            PETITIONER




                                                        
           VERSUS

    1.     The State of Maharashtra
           through Secretary, 
           Home Department, Mantralaya,




                                                
           Mumbai

    2.
                                  
           The Deputy Inspector General
           (Prison), Central Prison,
           Aurangabad
                                 
    3.     The Superintendent of Jail,
           District Aurangabad                                              RESPONDENTS
       


                              ----
    Mr. S.P. Koli, Advocate for the Petitioner
    



    Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondents/State 
                              ----





                                            CORAM :   S.S. SHINDE AND
                                                      SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 14th September, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S.S. SHINDE, J.) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned A.P.P., heard finally.

2 criwp910-2016

2. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment

for the offence punishable under section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.") in the open

prison at Paithan, District Aurangabad. It is the case

of the petitioner that during his twelve years period in

jail, he has never availed of the furlough or parole.

The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region,

Aurangabad, vide order dated 31st March, 2016, allowed

the application filed by the petitioner for grant of

furlough. However, the petitioner is asked to execute

a surety bond of his relative. According to the

petitioner, since he cannot furnish the said surety, he

is unable to avail of the furlough.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in

support of his contention that the Authority concerned

has discretion to dispense with the requirement of

furnishing surety bond of the relative and the

petitioner can be released on execution of personal

bond, invited our attention to Rule 6 of the Prisons

(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and also the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kumar

3 criwp910-2016

Rama Gowda Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others 2016

ALL MR (Cri) 2809.

4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.,

representing the State, submits that a Circular bearing

No. JLM-1012/Pra.Kra.85/Prison-2, dated 24th August, 2012

has been issued by the Government of Maharashtra,

Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai, wherein it is

provided that in case the convict is released on

parole/furlough and wishes to go to the other State to

avail of the said parole/furlough, he should provide

surety of at least one relative or any other competent

surety. The learned A.P.P. submits that in case the

petitioner is released on furlough, who hails from the

State of Karnataka, without obtaining the surety of his

relative, he may not be available to undergo the

remaining sentence. He submits that even the report

received from the Superintendent of Police, Vijapur is

adverse to the petitioner.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

A.P.P. appearing for the State. With their able

assistance, we have perused the memo of the writ

4 criwp910-2016

petition, annexures thereto and the relevant Rule from

the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and

also the judgent of the Division Bench of this Court in

Kumar Rama Gowda (supra).

6. It appears that while dealing with somewhat

similar fact situation, this Court, in the case of Kumar

Rama Gowda (supra), relying upon the judgment of the

Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Natia

Jiria Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 1984 CRI.L.J. 936

and also the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in

the case of Dipak s/o Sudhakar Wakalekar Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others 2011 CRI.L.J. 3263, has taken a

view that in case the convict is not able to execute the

surety of his relative/s, respondent No. 2 has

discretion to accept the personal bond submitted by the

convict and release him on furlough/parole.

7. In the light of discussion in the foregoing

paragraphs, we direct the respondents that the period

mentioned in the order of release of the petitioner on

furlough, dated 31st March, 2016, issued by respondent

No. 2, be extended by another four weeks and without

insisting for furnishing the surety of petitioner's

5 criwp910-2016

relative, release the petitioner on execution of

personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five

thousand). Needless to observe that respondent No. 2

may impose the condition asking the petitioner to attend

the nearest Police Station during the period of

furlough.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and

the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

9.

Since the learned counsel Mr. S.P. Koli is

appointed as Amicus Curiae to prosecute the cause of the

petitioner, his fees be paid as per the schedule of fees

maintained by the High Court Legal Service Sub-Committee

at Aurangabad.

           [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]                         [S.S. SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                                      JUDGE





    npj/criwp910-2016