Pappu Gajanan Zade (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6556 Bom

 2808CRWP601.17-Judgment                                                                        1/3


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


               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.   601   OF   2017


 PETITIONER :-                        Pappu   Gajanan   Zade,   Convict   No.C/9440,
                                      Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1. Deputy   Inspector   General   (Prisons)   (East),
                                    Nagpur. 
                                 2. The   Superintendent   of   Central   Prison,
                                    Nagpur. 


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, counsel for the petitioner.
            Mr.K.R.Lule, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    M. G. GIRATKAR
                                                                   ,   JJ.

DATED : 28.08.2017

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.

2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the

order of the Deputy Inspector General (Prisons), Nagpur dated

2808CRWP601.17-Judgment 2/3

09/05/2015 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of

furlough leave on the ground that Shri Rakshe, who according to the

petitioner would furnish surety for the release of the petitioner is not

ready to give surety for the petitioner's release. It is further stated in

the impugned order that the relatives of the victim have objected to the

release of the petitioner as according to them, the petitioner would

again threaten the relatives of the victim.

3. Shri Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that

the mother-in-law of the petitioner namely Tarabai Mohadikar is ready

to furnish surety for the release of the petitioner. It is stated that the

other reason recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner would

breach the peace and would threaten the members of the victim's family

is ill founded.

4. In the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to quash

and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to release

the petitioner on furlough leave if the mother-in-law of the petitioner

furnishes the surety, as required by rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay

Furlough and Parole) Rules. We are not impressed with the other

reason recorded in the impugned order for rejecting the application of

the petitioner for grant of furlough leave. If the respondents make an

2808CRWP601.17-Judgment 3/3

inquiry with the family members of the victim whether the convict

could be released, they are bound to object to the same. In the

circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Hence, we allow the writ petition. The impugned order is

quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the

petitioner on furlough leave if the mother-in-law of the petitioner

namely Tarabai Mohadikar furnishes the surety, as required by rule 6 of

the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules. The respondents are

directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave within seven days

from the date on which the mother-in-law of the petitioner furnishes the

surety. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

                        JUDGE                                                 JUDGE 


 KHUNTE