Shri. Vinod S/O. Vinayak Thakare ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4827 Bom

                                        1                                      CRIWP332.17.odt


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


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 332 OF 2017


 PETITIONER            : Vinod S/o Vinayak Thakare (In jail)
                         Convict No. C-8157,
                         Central Prison, Nagpur. 

                                              VERSUS

 RESPONDENTS: 1]  State of Maharashtra,
                  through the Deputy Inspector General
                  of Prison,  Nagpur.

                          2] Superintendent, 
                             Central Prison, Nagpur. 

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Mr. N. P. Meshram, 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 20, 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 the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order, dated 09.1.2017, by which his furlough leave application came

2 CRIWP332.17.odt

to be rejected.

3] It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for

furlough leave on 01.3.2016. There is no material facts against the

petitioner of bad behaviour in the prison. It is further submitted that

whenever the petitioner was released on parole or furlough, he

surrendered himself to the jail authority. He is already punished for

his default. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for allowing the

petition.

4] The respondents have filed the reply and opposed the

petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is in habit of not

surrendering before the jail authorities on due date. As per the chart,

showing the details of parole and furlough leave availed by the

petitioner, he surrendered late by 2 days, 26 days, 3 days, 8 days

and 7 days, respectively. The learned APP prayed for rejection of

the petition.

5] The application of the petitioner came to be rejected on

the ground that on previous occasions when the petitioner was

3 CRIWP332.17.odt

released on furlough/parole, he had deliberately surrendered late.

It is pertinent to note that though the petitioner surrendered late, he

is already punished for late surrender. There is no inordinate delay

in surrender. The delay/late surrender is by 2 days, 26 days, 3 days,

8 days and 7 days, respectively. Therefore, the impugned order

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6] In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (a) with a direction to the respondents to

release the petitioner on furlough leave on usual conditions and in

accordance with law.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                          JUDGE                                   JUDGE
 Diwale