Bombay High Court
Swapnil S/O. Mahadeo Somkuwar (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 18 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 CRIWP157.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Swapnil S/o Mahadeo Somkuar (In jail)
Convict No. C-8090,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] State of Maharashtra,
through the Deputy Inspector General
of Prison, (Eastern Region), Nagpur.
2] Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Mrunal S. Hiwase, Advocate appointed 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 18, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2] By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned order passed by the respondent no.1, dated 22.01.2016,
2 CRIWP157.17.odt
thereby rejecting application of the petitioner for grant of furlough
leave.
3] The petitioner is undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment in Central Prison, Nagpur for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 323, 148, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
4] It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for
furlough leave and the respondent no.2, rejected his application on
the ground that there is adverse police recommendation and he is
habitual in surrendering late in prison. It is submitted that every
time, the petitioner surrendered himself in prison and he was never
required to be arrested so also he was not absconding during the
period of furlough leave. The conduct of the petitioner was good
and satisfactory and he had not committed any crime during the
period of parole and furlough leave. Therefore, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by
the respondent no.1.
5] The respondents have filed the reply and strongly
opposed the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner never
3 CRIWP157.17.odt
surrendered on due date. It is further submitted that he surrendered
late by 8 days, 13 days, 6 days and 5 days, respectively. It is further
submitted that when the petitioner was released on parole leave on
22.05.2015, he did not surrender on due date and he was required to
be arrested and brought back to the prison after five days of due
date.
6] Ms. Hiwase, the learned counsel appointed for the
petitioner pointed out a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in Criminal Writ Petition No. 782/2016, dated 06.01.2017 and
submitted that on the same grounds, this Court allowed the petition.
7] From a perusal of the chart in the reply filed by the
respondents and the impugned order, it reveals that the application
for furlough leave came to be rejected due to late surrender by the
petitioner. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court granted furlough leave to the petitioner, who
was alleged to be habitual in surrendering late. The respondent
authorities must have punished the petitioner for late surrendering
and therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court relied on by the
4 CRIWP157.17.odt
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for grant
of furlough leave.
8] Hence, we allow this writ petition in terms of prayer
clause (i) with a direction to the respondents to consider the
application of the petitioner for furlough leave and grant the same in
accordance with law and on usual conditions.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
Fees of the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner
is quantified at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand Five hundred only)
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
