Bombay High Court
Shri. Rupesh S/O. Mohan Kadukar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 30 June, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 jg.cri.w.p.260.17.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2017
Shri Rupesh S/o Mohan Kadukar,
(In Jail) Convict No. C-8255,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
(1) The State of Maharashtra through
Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Nagpur.
(2) Superintendent, Central Prison,
Nagpur. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. P. Meshram, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri A. M. Joshi, APP for the State/respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE and
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 30/06/2017.
Judgment (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J)
Heard Shri Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/
respondents.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged
2 jg.cri.w.p.260.17.odt
the impugned order passed by the respondents. It is submitted that the
petitioner is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment at Central Prison,
Nagpur as per the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court,
Nagpur. The petitioner applied for furlough leave of 28 days to meet
his family. Respondents arbitrarily rejected his application for furlough,
therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order and further
prayed to grant petitioner furlough.
4. Respondents have filed reply and submitted that the
petitioner is habitual in coming late to the prison after relieving him on
furlough or parole leave. On last occasion i.e. on 2-4-2016, he released
on furlough leave but he returned to jail late by 63 days, therefore, his
application was rightly rejected by the respondents. At last, it is
submitted in the reply that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to
be quashed and set aside.
5. Shri Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed
out us decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 189/2017 in
which this Court has observed that "in view of the last release and
surrender on due date, it is apparent that, the previous history loses its
significance and accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned
order dated 9-12-2016. The petitioner is directed to be released for
3 jg.cri.w.p.260.17.odt
enjoying the furlough leave."
Shri Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on
last occasion i.e. on 2-4-2016, he was released on furlough leave, he
prayed for extension, it was wrongly rejected. Therefore, he had filed
Criminal Writ Petition No. 350/2016 in which this Court directed the
respondent authorities to treat the period from 2-4-2016 to 5 th July,
2016 as a parole leave. Therefore, it is clear that on the last occasion,
though he was late but due to the judgment of this Court in favour of
the present petitioner, it cannot be said that he was late. In view of the
above cited judgments, this Court direct the respondents to grant
furlough leave. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for furlough leave.
Hence, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, we allow the petition.
6. Impugned order passed by the respondent is hereby
quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant furlough
leave with usual conditions to the petitioner within three weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
