Laxman S/O. Pandurang Shinde (In ... vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3013 Bom

                                        1                                      CRIWP132.17.odt


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


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2017


 PETITIONER            : Laxman S/o Pandurang Shinde (In Jail)
                         Aged 32 years, R/o Kondala Zambre, 
                         Dist. Washim (C-4662, Central Prison, Amravati)

                                              VERSUS

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

                          2] The Superintendent of Jail,
                             Central Prison, Amravati

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Ms. S. B. Khobragade, 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     : JUNE 09, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent.

2] The petitioner/Convict (C-4662), who is presently

lodged in Central Prison, Amravati, is before this Court, challenging

2 CRIWP132.17.odt

the order passed by the respondent no.1, dated 07.12.2016, thereby

rejecting application of the petitioner/convict for grant of furlough

leave.

3] The petitioner has applied for the first time for grant of

furlough leave on the ground of visiting his family members. On an

enquiry for submitting police report, no adverse material was found

against the petitioner. The father of the petitioner was ready to

stand as surety for the petitioner and gave an undertaking that he

would control the activities of the petitioner. In spite of there being

no negative material against the petitioner, only on unsubstantiated

apprehension that the petitioner is an accused of offence under

Section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he may commit some

serious offence, his application for grant of furlough leave was

rejected.

4] The reply filed by the State is reiteration of some

unsubstantiated apprehensions. It is interesting to note that in the

reply, the authority has opposed the application of the petitioner on

an apprehension that the petitioner may indulge in an act of

3 CRIWP132.17.odt

disturbing law and order in the village, whereas in the police enquiry

report, no such apprehension is expressed by any of the persons,

whose statements were recorded. Thus, we are of the opinion

that the order ejecting application of the petitioner is clearly

unsustainable as the same is passed on wholly unreasonable

apprehension. The writ petition thus deserves to be allowed.

5] In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed. Rule

is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).

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