Bombay High Court
Manoj S/O. Mahadeoraoji Mude (In ... vs Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 21 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 CRIWP216.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 216 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Manoj S/o Mahadeoraoji Mude (In jail)
Convict No. C/8883,
Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Eastern Region, Nagpur.
2] The Superintendent of Police,
Wardha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Neerja Choube, 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 21, 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
impugned order, dated 22.3.2016, passed by the respondent no.1, by
2 CRIWP216.17.odt
which the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave
came to be rejected.
3] It is submitted that the petitioner has two little
daughters, who are residing with the sister of the petitioner at
Kelzar, Taq. Seloo, Dist. Wardha. He had applied for furlough leave
on 14.10.2015 for making arrangement of his daughters' education
and residence. It is submitted by the petitioner that his wife, mother,
father and brother have expired and all his other relatives are not
residing in his village i.e. mouza Hingni. Therefore, the petitioner
has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order and release
the petitioner on furlough leave.
4] The petition is opposed by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondents on the ground of adverse police
report. In the police enquiry, it is revealed that the petitioner is a
habitual drunker and no relative of the petitioner resides in his
village Hingni. The neighbours of the petitioner also raised objection
for releasing the petitioner. As such, on the basis of adverse police
report, the furlough leave application of the petitioner came to be
rejected.
3 CRIWP216.17.odt
5] The petitioner had applied for furlough leave on
14.10.2015, which is the first application made by the petitioner.
Before that, he was not released on furlough or parole leave.
Looking to the submission that he has only two daughters and he
want to make arrangement of their education and residence. His
daughters are presently residing with his sister at Kelzar, Tah. Seloo
and hence, there is no question of the petitioner going to his village.
Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6] In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (1). The respondents are directed 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.
The fees of the learned counsel appointed for the
petitioner is quantified at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand Five
hundred only).
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
