Bombay High Court
Shri. Bilal Sayyad S/O. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 5 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 jg.cri.wp.839.17.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 839 OF 2017
Shri. Bilal Sayyad S/o Mustafhaali Sayyad,
Presently Lodged at Central Prison, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
(1) State of Maharashtra through,
Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Aurangabad.
(2) Superintendent, Central Prison,
Nagpur. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. P. Meshram, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 5-12-2017
JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent
of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner is undergoing punishment for life
imprisonment at Central Prison, Nagpur. He was convicted for the
2 jg.cri.wp.839.17.odt
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The petitioner
prayed for 30 days furlough leave to meet his family. The respondent
no. 1 wrongly rejected application of the petitioner on the ground that
he is convicted under MCOC Act. In fact he is not convicted under the
MCOC Act and, therefore, Rule 4(4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough
and Parole) Rules, 1959 is not applicable.
3. The petition is strongly opposed by the respondents and
submitted that the petitioner is one of the accused along with Chhota
Rajan. There is every possibility of breach of peace and tranquility.
Hence, application for furlough leave is rightly rejected.
4. Heard learned counsel Shri N. P. Meshram for the
petitioner. He has pointed out copy of the operative order of judgment
in MCOC Special Case No. 14/2011. He has submitted that application
for furlough is wrongly rejected by the respondent no. 1 and at last
prayed to allow the petition.
5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Deshmukh
for the respondents. She has supported the impugned order.
3 jg.cri.wp.839.17.odt
6. Perused the operative order of the judgment in MCOC
Special Case No. 14/2011. The petitioner is convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
7. From the perusal of paragraph 9 of the operative order, it is
clear that the accused no. 2 Bilal Sayyad Mustafa Sayyed is acquitted for
the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of the
MCOC Act. From reading of paragraph 9 of the operative order of the
judgment, it is clear that the petitioner is not convicted under the MCOC
Act and, therefore, impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1
stating that the petitioner is convicted under the MCOC Act is not
correct. The respondent no. 1 has wrongly rejected the application of
the petitioner for furlough leave as per Rule 4(4) of the Prison (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules. The petitioner is entitled for furlough
leave. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
4 jg.cri.wp.839.17.odt
(ii) Impugned order dated 4-5-2016 passed by the respondent
no. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on
furlough leave for a period of 30 days on furnishing surety of
nearest relative.
(iv) During the period of furlough leave, the petitioner shall
report to the nearest police station once in a week i.e. on every
Saturday in between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon.
(v) The petitioner shall surrender to the prison on due date.
8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
