Rajesh S/O. Shriram Gawande (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. D.I.G. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9733 Bom

                                 1                            wp897.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.897 OF 2017



  Rajesh s/o. Shriram Gawande,
  Convict No.C/9050, Presently
  at Central Prison, Nagpur.                ..........      PETITIONER


          // VERSUS //


  1)State of Maharashtra,
     Through D.I.G. (Prisons), 
     East Division, Nagpur.

  2)The Superintendent of 
      Central Prison, 
      Nagpur.                                   ..........       RESPONDENTS


  ____________________________________________________________  
                    Mr.S.D.Sohoo, Advocate for the Petitioner.
          Mrs.M.H.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
  ____________________________________________________________




::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 02:14:44 :::
                                     2                                 wp897.17.odt




                                     CORAM     :  R.K.DESHPANDE 
                                                          AND
                                                          M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATED : 18th December, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent

of learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order passed by respondent no.1 dt.27.7.2017. It is

submitted that the petitioner applied for furlough leave. The

respondent, without recording proper reason, wrongly rejected the

application of petitioner on the ground that the appeal is pending

and the petitioner was late to surrender in the year 2016.

3. Heard Mr.S.D.Sohoo, learned Counsel for the applicant

and Mrs.M.H.Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.

Perused the impugned order. From the perusal of the impugned

order, it appears that the application is rejected on the ground that

3 wp897.17.odt

the petitioner did not surrender to the prison on the due date.

Therefore, he was brought by police and crime was registered for the

offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code

against him. Another ground for rejection is that the appeal is

pending against the petitioner.

4. Filing appeal against the Judgment of conviction is the

right of prisoner/convict. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

ground regarding pendency of appeal against the petitioner is a

reasonable ground to reject application for furlough. It is mentioned

in the impugned order that, in the year 2016, petitioner has not

reported to jail on the due date and, therefore, he was arrested and

brought to the prison. But, it is not made clear as to how many days

delay was made by the petitioner in reporting to prison. Moreover, it

was the first instance of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order

passed by respondent no.1 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Therefore, we pass the following order.

The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of

the petition.

We quash and set aside the impugned order

dt.27.7.2017 passed by respondent no.1. We direct the respondents

4 wp897.17.odt

to release the petitioner on furlough leave of 21 days on such terms

and conditions as they deem fit.

No order as to costs.

                            JUDGE                       JUDGE
   



  [jaiswal]





                                5               wp897.17.odt