Vasudeo Ramchandra Thakare (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9798 Bom

                                                   1                                    jg.cri. wp 1078.17.odt


                 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1078 OF 2017

Vasudeo Ramchandra Thakare,
Convict No. C/6525, Aged 39 years, 
Occ. Nil, Confined at Central Prison, 
Nagpur.                                                                                         ... Petitioner

             VERSUS

(1)  State of Maharashtra through
       Deputy Inspector General of Prison, 
       Eastern Region, Nagpur. 

(2)  The Superintendent,
       Central Prison, Nagpur.                                                             ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. S. D. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                                   DATE    :  19-12-2017

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

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent

of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order dated 27-7-2017 passed by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner

2 jg.cri. wp 1078.17.odt

applied for furlough leave. His application came to be rejected on the

ground that the petitioner was earlier released on 24-8-2005 on

furlough leave. He did not surrender to the prison on due date. He was

arrested by police after 2573 days and brought to the prison. Therefore,

his application came to be rejected as per Rule 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) of

the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

3. Heard learned counsel Ms. Wankhede for the petitioner and

Mrs. Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. Perused the impugned order. As per chart given in the

reply, it is clear that the petitioner was released on furlough leave on

24-8-2005. He did not surrender on due date and he was required to be

arrested by police after 2573 days. Therefore, it is clear that for long

time, the petitioner not reported to the prison and police authority was

required to arrest him and brought to the prison. Therefore, as per Rule

4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, the

application of the petitioner is rightly rejected. Hence, we do not find

any merit in the petition. In the result, writ petition is dismissed.

                            JUDGE                                 JUDGE
wasnik