Daddu @ Swapnil S/O. Rahul Meshram ... vs The Superintendent Central ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4143 Bom

                                        1                                      CRIWP111.17.odt


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


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2017


 PETITIONER            : Daddu @ Swapnil S/o Rahul Meshram,
                         Aged about major,  Convict No. C-8515,
                         Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur  

                                              VERSUS

 RESPONDENTS: 1] Superintendent, 
                 Central Prison, Nagpur.

                          2] The D.I.G. Prison, Nagpur.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Mr. A. S. Band, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mrs. N. R. Tripathy, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE and
                                 MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : JULY 06, 2017.

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

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

2] By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing

and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.1, dated

2 CRIWP111.17.odt

31.01.2017, thereby rejecting the application for grant of furlough

leave.

3] The petitioner/convict, who is presently lodged in

Central Prison, Nagpur, is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 452 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as per the judgment and order

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

4] The petitioner had applied for grant of furlough leave to

the respondent no.2 on 04.1.2017. The respondent no.2 authority

rejected the same vide order dated 31.01.2017 due to adverse police

report and on the ground that the petitioner when earlier released

had not surrendered on due date and was arrested and brought back

by the police authorities to the prison.

5] We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents

and have examined the record.

 6]               Mr.   Band,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,





                                 3                               CRIWP111.17.odt

submitted that the respondent-authority has wrongly rejected the

application of the petitioner. The respondent authority pointed out

the judgment of this Court in the case of Sitaram Rajaram

Deokar .vs. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, East Nagpur and

another, reported in 2014 All M.R. (Cri) 1309 and submitted that

in view of this reported judgment, the petitioner is entitled for grant

of furlough leave.

7] Mrs. Tripathy, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the respondent-

authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. She

submitted that on earlier occasion, the petitioner was released on

furlough leave, but not surrendered on due date. Therefore, he is

not entitled for furlough leave.

8] Perusal of the material placed on record, more

particularly the impugned order shows that the petitioner was

released on 28.8.2013 on furlough leave, but he surrendered late by

28 days. It further shows that on 03.6.2015, again the petitioner was

released on parole leave and he was required to brought back to the

prison by police late by three days.

                                     4                                  CRIWP111.17.odt


 9]               In  Rajaram   Deokar's  case   (supra)   relied   on   by   the

learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has observed that Rule

4 (10) is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, this Court directed

the authority to release the petitioner/convict on furlough leave.

10] In the present case, the petitioner was lastly brought

back in the prison by police late by three days. In view of the

reported judgment cited supra in Sitaram Deokar's case, the

petitioner is entitled for furlough leave. Hence, the petition deserves

to be allowed.

11] In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 31.01.2017 is quashed and

set aside. The respondent no.2 authority is directed to release the

petitioner on furlough leave for a period of 28 days within two weeks

by following the procedure of law and on usual conditions.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

                                  JUDGE                          JUDGE
 Diwale