Rajesh Dina Sahare (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1446 Bom

                                                       1                                   04042017 wp 942.16.odt 

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                                  NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                      Criminal Writ Petition No.942 of 2016

           Rajesh Dina Sahare (In Jail)
           Aged about 52 years,
           R/o.-Paraswada, Tah. Tiroda, Distt. Gondia,
           Convict No.C-9077, Central Prison, Nagpur.                 .... Petitioner.

                                                              Versus

           1]       Deputy Inspector General of Prison, 
                    Central Prison, Nagpur.

           2]      Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, 
                   Nagpur.                                                                .... Respondents.
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Ms   S.B. Khobragade, Advocate for petitioner.
           Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, Addl.PP for respondents.
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari  &
                                                                 V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

th Dated : 04 April, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused reply.

2] Furlough has been rejected on the ground that earlier the

petitioner has not reported on time and in 2009 when he was released

2 04042017 wp 942.16.odt

on furlough, Crime No.9 of 2009 under Sections 457 and 380 of the

Indian Penal Code was registered against him.

3] Learned Advocate Ms Khobragade for the petitioner points out

that, the petitioner has been acquitted therefrom. She further states

that a chart produced with reply does not show any release on furlough

in the year 2009.

4] The learned APP submits that the chart gives some instances of

late reporting. As the offence was required to be pleaded separately

that offence/period has not been included in the chart.

5] The respondents in reply-affidavit have given details of parole and

furlough availed of by the petitioner. They have mentioned only four

occasions and on all those occasions the petitioner has reported late

but voluntarily. The duration of delay is between two days to 13 days.

6] The furlough, if any, in year 2009 or late reporting therefrom has

not been mentioned. It, therefore, appears that the instances of parole

and furlough when petitioner returned back on time are not mentioned

in the chart. It also, therefore, appears that in 2009 when the alleged

offence was committed the petitioner returned back on due date.

                                                        3                                   04042017 wp 942.16.odt 

           7]                 In this situation,  taking overall view of  the matter  it seems that 

the instances of late reporting way back between 2005 to 2008 are

now pressed into service after more than nine years. We, therefore, find

the rejection of request made by the petitioner for furlough is unjustified.

Accordingly, the order rejecting the furlough is quashed and set aside.

The petitioner shall be released on furlough leave after obtaining the

necessary bond and undertaking from his surety within two weeks from

today.

8] Writ Petition is, thus, partly allowed and disposed of.

                                             JUDGE                                           JUDGE  
                                 




            
           Deshmukh