Bombay High Court
Mujaffar @ Ali Ramzan Ali vs Deputy Inspector General ... on 4 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp918.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.918 OF 2017
Mujaffar @ Ali Ramzan Ali,
Convict No.C/9185,
Presently at Central Prison,
Nagpur. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Deputy Inspector General
(Prisons) (East), Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:46:10 :::
2 wp918.17.odt
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 4th December, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned order dt.4.9.2017 passed by the D.I.G. (Prisons), Nagpur.
3. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for five years
at Central Prison, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has undergone
approximately two years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner was
convicted by the Sessions Court at Nagpur vide Judgment and order
dt.27.10.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.208 of 2014.
3 wp918.17.odt
4. On 18.7.2017, the petitioner applied for grant of
furlough leave. However, the Competent Authority, by an order
dt.4.9.2017, rejected the same. Hence, the present petition.
5. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing
reply.
6. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner is
facing another trial and therefore, he is not entitled for furlough
leave.
7. Heard Mr.Mir Nagman Ali, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents.
From the perusal of the impugned order and reply, it appears that
the impugned order is mechanically passed by respondent no.1
without noting the factual position. In para no.1 of the reply, it is
stated that " the present petitioner not availed furlough or parole
leave up til now". But, in the impugned order dt.4.9.2017, in para 5,
it is stated that " the convict when earlier was released on leave, then
he was required to be brought back by Police to prison after 862
days. Reply filed by the respondents does not show that the
4 wp918.17.odt
petitioner has availed any leave. Therefore, it is clear that the
impugned order is passed mechanically. Pendency of another
Criminal Case is not a bar under the Rules to refuse furlough leave.
The petitioner is eligible for furlough leave. For the first time, he has
applied for furlough leave on 18.7.2017. Hence, the impugned order
is liable to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, we allow the
petition.
8. Respondent No.1 is directed to release the petitioner on
furlough leave of 21 days on the following conditions :
a) the petitioner shall furnish surety of his nearest relative.
b) the petitioner shall report to the nearest Police Station
on every Saturday in between 10 to 11 a.m.
c) he shall surrender to the prison on the due date.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
5 wp918.17.odt
