Suraj S/O. Sarju Sarate (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. D.I.G. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9679 Bom

                                                                  1                                              wp1043of2017.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
                                        Criminal Writ Petition No.1043 of 2017

  Petitioner :-                                             Suraj s/o Sarju Sarate,
                                                            Convict No. C-4875, Central Prison,
                                                            Dist. Amravati. 

                                                                                V/s  

  Respondents :-                                  1.   The State of Maharashtra through

D.I.G. Prison, (East) Nagpur.

2. The superintendent of Central Prison, Dist. Amravati.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.Y. Sharma, Advocate (Appointed) for the Petitioner. Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the State.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE AND M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ DATED : 15/12/2017

Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J)

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the

learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The application for grant of furlough leave for a period of 21

days is rejected by the respondents on the ground that on earlier occasion

when the petitioner-prisoner was released on furlough leave on 15/6/2009,

he reported late by 225 days. Undisputedly, thereafter on 21/1/2016, again

furlough leave was granted to the petitioner, but he reported late and did

2 wp1043of2017.odt

not report back on due date to the prison.

3. Report of the i/c Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes)

dated 23.1.2017 shows that the mother of the petitioner-prisoner is ready to

stand surety for him and that there is no adverse entry against the petitioner

when he was released on parole and furlough leave on two occasions in the

past. In view of this, we feel that the petitioner can be released on furlough

leave for a period of 21 days from the date of his release. Of course, the

respondents-Authorities can impose suitable conditions so as to see that the

petitioner reports back to the prison on due date.

4. In the result petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

28/08/2017 refusing grant of furlough leave to the petitioner-prisoner is

hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner is entitled for

furlough leave for a period of 21 days from the date of his release upon such

terms and conditions as the respondents-Authorities may deem fit and

proper. The petitioner shall be released on furlough leave only after

completing all the formalities.

Fees of learned counsel appointed for the petitioner-prisoner is

quantified at Rs. 1500/-.

                         JUDGE                                          JUDGE

  nandurkar