Bombay High Court
Shri. Ramdas Sitaram Maraskolhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 18 August, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1808CRWP350.17-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 350 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- Shri Ramdas Sitaram Maraskolhe, Aged
adult, Occ : Nil, R/o at Khanapur, Distt.
Wardha.
C-8735.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the
Deputy Inspector General (Jail), Central Jail,
Wardha Road, Nagpur.
2) The Superintendent of Police, Wardha.
3) The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Wardha.
4) The Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Talegaon, Wardha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.R.Gour, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Tembhare, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 18.08.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ
petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties.
1808CRWP350.17-Judgment 2/3
2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the
order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison), Nagpur dated
13/02/2017 and seeks the furlough leave.
3. Shri Gour, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that the application of the petitioner for furlough leave is wrongly
rejected on the ground that the mother-in-law of the petitioner, who is
ready to furnish surety under rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough
and Parole) Rules, 1959, would not be in a position to keep control over
the petitioner. It is stated that the additional reason for rejecting the
furlough leave is that on two earlier occasions, the petitioner had
belatedly surrendered 18 days and 70 days after the expiry of parole
leave.
4. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties
that on the earlier occasion also the mother-in-law of the petitioner, i.e.
Smt.Yenubai Kumre had furnished the surety for the release of the
petitioner on furlough and hence the first reason recorded by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison) for rejecting the furlough
leave of the petitioner does not appear to be just and proper. In regard
to the second ground, one more opportunity needs to be granted to the
petitioner as on two earlier occasions though he had surrendered
1808CRWP350.17-Judgment 3/3
belatedly, he was not required to be brought to the prison by the police
authorities. This time the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated
that the petitioner would surrender on the due date.
5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal writ petition
is allowed. The impugned order dated 13/02/2017 is quashed and set
aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough
leave on furnishing surety as required by rule 6 of the Rules of 1959.
The petitioner should be released on furlough leave within seven days
from the date on which he furnishes the surety under rule 6. Rule is
made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The professional fees of the
learned counsel for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.1,500/-. Order
accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
