Bombay High Court
Sagir @ Bablu @ Babla Shabbir ... vs Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 28 June, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 wp279.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 20
17
Sagir @ Bablu @ Babla Shabbir Sheikh,
Aged 35 years, R/o Mustafa Compound,
Wakanpada, Tah. Wasai, District Palghar
(C-65 Open Prison, Nagpur) .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Jail, Open Prison,
Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. S.B. Khobragade, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M.K. Pathan, Addl. P.P. for Respondents - State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ .
DATE : JUNE
28 , 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: PRASANNA B. VARALE, J)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging order passed by
the Respondent No.1 Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur, dated
20.1.2017.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner, is
lodged on Open Prison, Nagpur and undergoing sentence as per the
2 wp279.odt
judgment and order passed by the learned District and Session Judge,
Mumbai, for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had applied to Respondent No.1 for
grant of release on furlough leave on 29.3.2016 on the ground that, he
want to spend quality time with his family. On the ground of negative
report namely the proposed surety of the petitioner one Smt. Nurjha
Bablu @ Babla Shabir Sheikh is not competent surety, the petitioner's
application for furlough leave was rejected.
4. Perusal of the order impugned in the petition shows that the
Respondent No.1 rejected the application on the ground that the surety
failed to produce any material to show that the petitioner's surety
possessed some property. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the order impugned in the petition is unsustainable on
more than one ground. She submitted that the authority in the order
specifically referred to the documents supplied by the surety, namely,
Aadhar Card and Pan Card. She further submitted that as the surety
was possessing no property in her name, she was unable to produce
any such material. The learned counsel though submitted that the
understanding for such a material by the authorities is nothing but to
frustrate the object of grant of Furlough leave. The learned counsel
then submitted that the rejection order also suffers from non
application of mind.
3 wp279.odt
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner/convict
is undergoing the sentence in Open Prison and in case of the convicts
in open prison, the authority by accepting the personal surety, ought to
have allowed the application. The learned counsel, in support of this
submission invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 432/2016 dated 20.7.2016, wherein a
reference is made to the order of the Division Bench, in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 53/2014, allowed the petition and the petitioner was
directed to be released to furlough leave for a period of two weeks on
Personal Bond. In view of the referred facts, the order impugned in the
petition is clearly unsustainable and the petition deserves to be
allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed
to be released on furlough for a period of two weeks on Personal Bond
in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- .
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Criminal Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Nandurkar
