Mangesh Shivaji Chauhan (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4909 Bom

                                        1                                      CRIWP382.17.odt


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


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 382 OF 2017


 PETITIONER            : Mangesh S/o Shivaji Chauhan (In jail)
                         Aged about 38 years,
                         R/o Raghuji Nagar, Choota Tajbagh,
                         Police Station, Sakkardara, Nagpur.
                         (C-9165, Central Prison, Nagpur.)


                                              VERSUS


 RESPONDENTS: 1]  Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
                  Central Prison,  Nagpur.

                          2] Superintendent of Jail, 
                             Central Prison, Nagpur. 

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Ms. Sonali B. Khobragade, 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 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





                                  2                                 CRIWP382.17.odt

impugned order, dated 05.4.2017, passed by the respondent no.1, by

which his furlough leave application came to be rejected.

3] It is submitted that for the first time the petitioner has

applied for grant of furlough leave for 21 days on 21.2.2017. The

respondent authority rejected the application of the petitioner on the

ground that his mother/surety would not be able to control the

petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for allowing the

petition.

4] The respondents have filed the reply and opposed the

petition.

5] The petitioner has applied for the first time for furlough

leave. The mother of the petitioner is ready to stand surety for him.

The respondent authority ought to have seen that for the first time

the petitioner has applied for furlough leave. The application is

rejected on minor ground. Hence, the petition is liable to be

allowed.

                                    3                                   CRIWP382.17.odt


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

terms of prayer clause (i) 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