Pappu @ Ravi Nankuram Yadao (In ... vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3386 Bom

                                                   1                                      jg.cri.w.p.301.17.odt


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

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 301 OF 2017

Pappu @ Ravi Nankuram Yadao (In Jail)
R/o. Baba Farid Nagar, 
Koradi Road, Nagpur. 
Convict No. 7484
Central Prison, Nagpur                                                                        ... Petitioner

             VERSUS

(1) Deputy Inspector General of Prison, 
      Central Prison, Nagpur. 

(2) Superintendent of Jail,
      Central Prison, Nagpur.                                                              ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. S. B. Khobragade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, APP for the State/respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  CORAM : PRASANNA  B. VARALE and
                                                                M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

                                                   DATE    :  20/06/2017.

Oral Judgment                 (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J)

Heard Ms. Khobragade, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mrs. Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State/respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent

2 jg.cri.w.p.301.17.odt

no. 1 - Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Central Prison, Nagpur

dated 22-3-2017 by which the prayer of the petitioner to release

him on furlough is rejected on the ground that on earlier occasion, he

reported late.

4. Ms. Khobragade, learned counsel for the petitioner has

pointed out us chart in the reply filed by the respondent which shows

that dates of year 2015 and 2016 which are the dates mentioned in the

impugned order. This chart shows that petitioner was released in the

year 2015 and 2016.

5. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor that earlier, the petitioner has committed breach and,

therefore, authority has rejected his application for furlough leave. She

strongly supported the impugned order.

6. From perusal of the chart in the reply filed by the

respondent at page no. 19 clearly shows that even after the year 2014,

the petitioner was released on furlough leave. The copy of order dated

3/4th May, 2016 is also placed on record which shows that petitioner

was released on furlough leave. Without taking into consideration the

record which was available with the authorities, impugned order is

passed. The impugned order itself shows that the ground for which the

3 jg.cri.w.p.301.17.odt

petitioner was refused furlough leave was also available to the

authorities while passing the order dated 3/4th May, 2016. Therefore, it

is clear that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1

rejecting the furlough leave application is liable to be quashed and set

aside. Hence, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i).

                        JUDGE                                     JUDGE



wasnik