Bombay High Court
Ajaj Khan Jabaz Khan (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General ... on 21 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 CRIWP393.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 393 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Ajaj Khan Jabaz Khan (In jail)
Convict No. C/4236,
Presently at Central Prison, Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] Deputy Inspector General (Prisons)(East),
Nagpur.
2] The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Amravati.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, 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 10.10.2016, passed by the respondent no.1,
2 CRIWP393.17.odt
by which his furlough leave application came to be rejected.
3] It is submitted that earlier, the petitioner was released
on parole leave on 10.8.2012 and he surrendered late by 481 days.
It is submitted that the respondent no.1 wrongly rejected the
application of the petitioner for furlough leave on the ground of his
late surrender. It is submitted that the petitioner is already punished
by the respondent authorities vide Crime No. 161/2013 for the
offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to quash and
set aside the impugned order and release the petitioner on furlough
leave.
4] The respondents have filed the reply and supported the
impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner was released on
parole leave on 10.8.2012, but he did not surrender on due date. It
is further submitted that the petitioner was required to be arrested
and brought back to the prison after 481 days. Therefore, according
to the learned APP, the application was rightly rejected by the
respondent authorities.
3 CRIWP393.17.odt
5] The application of the petitioner for furlough leave came
to be rejected on the ground that on last occasion, the petitioner was
released on parole leave and he did not report on due date. He was
required to be arrested by police and brought back to the prison after
481 days. This Court, vide judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.
782/2016, has held that the concerned authorities have already
imposed the penalty for late surrender. Therefore, the prisoner is
entitled for furlough leave.
6] In the present petition also, the respondents have
punished the petitioner vide Crime NO. 161/2013 for the offence
punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of
the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.782/2016,
the petitioner is entitled for grant of furlough leave. As such, the
petition deserves to be allowed.
7] In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (ii) with a direction to the respondents to
release the petitioner on furlough leave on usual conditions and in
accordance with law.
4 CRIWP393.17.odt
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
