Bombay High Court
Shri. Subhash S/O. Laxman ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 5 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 jg.cri.wp333.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 333 of 2017
Shri Shubhash S/o Laxman Pandhare
(In Jail), Convict No. C-7504,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
// Versus //
1. State of Maharashtra through,
Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Nagpur.
2. Superintendent, Central Prison,
Nagpur. ... Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. P. Meshram, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri M. K. Pathan, A.P.P. for the respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : P. B. VARALE and
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 05/07/2017.
JUDGMENT (Per : M.G. Giratkar,J.)
Heard Shri Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State/respondents.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed
by the respondent no. 1 dated 13-10-2016 by which furlough leave
2 jg.cri.wp333.17.odt
application dated 13-4-2016 came to be rejected. It is submitted that
whenever the petitioner was released on furlough or parole leave, he
did not breach the peace and tranquility in the society. The petitioner
was released on furlough leave on 14-1-2010 but he was surrendered
late by only 2 days. On 8-10-2011, he was released on furlough leave
but he was brought in the prison after 4 days. On last occasion i.e. on
5-9-2015, when the petitioner was released on furlough leave, he was
surrendered on due date. At last, it is submitted that the petitioner is
ready to abide by all the terms and conditions, therefore, it is prayed to
quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent
no. 1 to release him on furlough leave.
4. The petition is opposed by the respondents. It is submitted
that police verification report of petitioner is adverse. When he was
released on furlough/parole leave, not surrendered on due date. It is
submitted that there was every possibility of disturbing peace and
tranquility in the society. At last, it is submitted that the petition is
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
5. Shri Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that this Court has given direction to the respondents in an identical
matters to release the petitioner on furlough leave. On the last
3 jg.cri.wp333.17.odt
occasion, the petitioner reported on due date and, therefore, he be
released on furlough leave.
6. Perused the impugned order. Impugned order came to be
passed due to late surrender of the petitioner. In the identical matter,
this Court directed the respondent to release the prisoner on furlough
leave. On the last occasion, the petitioner surrendered on due date.
Looking to the submissions, the petitioner is entitled for furlough leave.
Hence, we allow the petition and direct the respondents to consider the
application of petitioner and grant him furlough leave on usual
conditions.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
