Bombay High Court
Shri. Sachin S/O. Dnyaneshwar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 2 August, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 WP348.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 348/2017
Petitioner : Shri. Sachin S/o Dnyaneshwar Fulkar,
(In Jail). Convict No. C-9374,
Central Prison, Nagpur
Versus
Respondents : 1. State of Maharashtra, through
Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Nagpur
2.Superintendent, Central Prison,
Nagpur
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri N.P. Meshram, Advocate for the petitioner
Smt. N.R. Tripathi,A.P.P for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : P.B.Varale and
M.G.Giratkar, JJ.
DATE : 02/08.201
.
Judgment : ( Per Murlidhar G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned council for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned order passed by the Respondent no. 1 by which his
application for furlough not considered.
2 WP348.2017
3. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for furlough
on 13th April 2016. Respondent No. 1 passed the arbitrary order and
rejected his application on the ground that surety is not able to
control the petitioner. It is submitted that the enquiry report reveals
that Mrs. Kaushalya, aged about 65 years is willing to stand as surety.
The petitioner do not have any relative in village other than his
mother-Mrs. Kaushalya. His mother Mrs. Kaushalya is having good
health. She is able to control the petitioner. At last, it is submitted that
the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
4. Respondents have strongly objected the petition by
filing reply. It is submitted that the report was called from the
respondent no. 2. Surety named in the application is not able to
control the petitioner and, therefore, the application is rightly
rejected.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. N.R.
Tripathi strongly objected the application.
6. The petitioner is in jail. He has completed three years,
one month and 26 days in jail. He is entitled for furlough leave. For
3 WP348.2017
the first time, the petitioner applied for Furlough leave. His
application came to be rejected on the ground that his relative can
meet him in the jail. It is also stated that his mother is not able to
control him.
7. The above referred grounds are not sufficient to reject
the application for furlough leave. The petitioner, for the first time,
applied for furlough leave. There is no other ground to reject his
application. Respondent no. 1 not applied his mind properly.
8. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be quashed and
set aside. Hence, we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (a)
and (b) with direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on
Furlough leave on usual conditions.
JUDGE JUDGE
A.P. Ansari
