Sachin S/O. Kashinath Ingle (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3536 Bom

                                        1                                      CRIWP274.17.odt


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


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 274 OF 2017


 PETITIONER            : Sachin S/o Kashinath Ingle,
                         Aged about 27 years, 
                         Convict No. C-8155,
                         Central Prison, Nagpur  (In Jail)

                                              VERSUS

 RESPONDENTS: 1] State of Maharashtra, 
                 through, Deputy Inspector General Of Prisons,
                 (E) Region, Nagpur Division,
                 Nagpur.

                          2] The Superintendent of Prison,
                             Central Prison, Nagpur.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Mr. N. H. Samundre, 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     : JUNE 22, 2017.



 ORAL JUDGMENT



                   Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     Heard   the

 learned counsel for the parties finally by consent.





                                 2                                 CRIWP274.17.odt


 2]               By this petition, the  petitioner  is praying for quashing

and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.1, dated

20.3.2017, thereby rejecting the application for grant of furlough

leave.

3] The petitioner/convict, who is presently lodged in

Central Prison, Nagpur, is undergoing sentence of life for the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 as per the

judgment and order passed by the learned 11th Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

4] The petitioner had applied for grant of furlough leave to

the respondent no.1 and by order dated 20.3.2017, his application

was rejected on the ground of over stay. On earlier occasion, the

petitioner was required to be arrested.

5] Mr. Samundre, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by

inviting our attention to the orders passed by this Court in Criminal

Writ Petition Nos.608/2016 and 647/2016 filed by the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner had sought parole leave on account of

death of his grandmother and as the application was rejected, the

3 CRIWP274.17.odt

petitioner had approached this Court by filing Cri.W.P. No.608/16.

He submitted that by order dated 05.8.2016, the petition was

allowed and the petitioner was released on parole for a period of

seven days, on completion of the formalities by the respondent-

authorities. The learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner

was required to overstay for conducting last rites and rituals of his

grandmother. As such, the petitioner had submitted an application

for extension and as the application was pending before the

respondent-authorities, the petitioner was again required to file

Criminal Writ Petition No. 647/2016 and by order, dated 22.8.2016,

this Court directed the respondent-authorities to consider the

application expeditiously. The submission of the learned counsel for

the petitioner is, these facts are not taken into consideration by the

respondent- authorities while passing the impugned order and on a

mechanical and technical approach rejected the application.

6] The learned counsel for the petitioner then by inviting

our attention to the order of this Court passed in Criminal Writ

Petition Nos.27/2016 and 57/2016, dated 16.3.2016, submitted that

in the identical situation, this Court allowed the petitions by

4 CRIWP274.17.odt

directing the respondent-authorities to reconsider the applications

for grant of furlough by examining the sufficiency of the reasons

assigned by the petitioners for overstay.

7] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the

petition and submitted that the respondent-authorities by exercising

the powers under the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules,

1959, more particularly Sections 4(4) and 4(10), rejected the

application of the petitioner on account of overstay.

8] In view of above referred facts, more particularly in view

of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ

Petition Nos. 27/2016 and 57/2016, wherein in identical

circumstances this Court allowed the petitions with direction to the

respondent-authorities to reconsider the application for grant of

furlough, we see no reason to take different view than the view taken

by the Division Bench of this Court.

9] In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 20.3.2017 is quashed and set

aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the application

5 CRIWP274.17.odt

moved by the petitioner for grant of furlough and also examine the

sufficiency of reasons assigned by the petitioner for overstaying. By

undertaking the exercise as directed by this Court, the application be

decided as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three

weeks from today.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

                                  JUDGE                        JUDGE

 Diwale