Bombay High Court
Laxmikant @ Lacchu Ravindra Faye ... vs Deputy Inspector General ... on 1 August, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 jg.cri.wp355.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2017
Laxmikant @ Lacchu Ravindra Faye,
Convict No. C/9068,
Presently at Central Prison
Nagpur. .... Petitioner
// Versus //
(1) Deputy Inspector General (Prisons)(East),
Nagpur.
(2) The Superintendent Central Prison,
Nagpur. .... Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mir N. Ali, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : P. B. VARALE and
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 01/08/2017.
JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.)
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated
21-3-2017 passed by the respondent no. 1 by which furlough leave
application of the petitioner came to be rejected.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing
imprisonment for life at Central Prison, Nagpur for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioner has undergone 4 years of actual imprisonment. He is
2 jg.cri.wp355.17.odt
eligible for grant of furlough leave. On 18-11-2016, the petitioner
applied for grant of furlough leave before the competent authority,
however, vide order dated 21-3-2017, the respondent no. 1 rejected
furlough leave application of the petitioner.
3. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed by the
respondent no. 1 without applying his mind. It is submitted that in
the year 2015, the petitioner was released on furlough and he
surrendered to the prison. The petitioner was released on parole and
he himself surrendered. It is submitted that the grounds for rejection
of furlough that surety is not able to control him is not a good ground
to reject his application for furlough. At last, it is submitted that the
impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Respondent authorities have supported the impugned
order by filing reply. It is submitted that as per the verification report,
surety is not competent to control the petitioner and, therefore,
furlough application of the petitioner came to be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel Shri Mir Nagman Ali for the
petitioner. He has pointed out chart in the reply and submitted that
the petitioner has not committed any breach of order of the
3 jg.cri.wp355.17.odt
respondent whenever he was released on furlough/parole and
reported within time to the jail authorities. Respondents will have
directed the petitioner to provide another surety, but without
informing him, wrongly rejected his application. Ground for rejection
of furlough is not a good ground, therefore, prayed to allow the
petition.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Tripathi
supported the impugned order.
7. Perused the reply filed by the respondent no. 2. As per
the chart, petitioner was released on leave for two times. He was
released on furlough leave on 11-7-2015 and surrendered himself on
due date. Thereafter he was released on parole leave on 4-2-2016
and the petitioner surrendered himself on due date. Therefore, it is
clear that there is no any breach committed by the petitioner, hence
impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed and
set aside. Therefore, we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause
(ii) with direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on
furlough leave on usual conditions.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
