Samadhan Waman Manwar vs Dy. Inspector General (Prison) ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 748 Bom

 CWP 868.16.odt                                1
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.868 OF 2016

 Samadhan Waman Manwar,
 Aged about 48 years,
 At present detained in Central
 Prison, Amravati, having
 Prisoner No.C-3120.                                ..               PETITIONER

                                .. VERSUS ..

 1]     Dy. Inspector General (Prisons),
        East Division, Nagpur.

 2]     The Superintendent,
        Amravati Central Prison,
        Amravati.                                   ..          RESPONDENTS


                    ..........
 Shri G.S. Agrawal, Advocate [Appointed] for Petitioner,
 Shri M.K. Pathan, APP for Respondents.
                    ..........

                                CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
                                        KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 15, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.R. GAVAI, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

by consent.

2] The petitioner approached this court being

rejection of his application for furlough.

3] The application was rejected on the ground that

when the petitioner was released on parole in the year

2014, he did not surrender within the stipulated period and

was required to be arrested, after the period of 41 days from

the scheduled date of his surrender.

4] The Division Bench of this court in the case of Raju

@ Rajabhau Bhagwantrao Wankhede .vs. The D.I.G. Prisons

(E) (R) and another, reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1834 has

held that merely because an accused was required to be

arrested cannot be a sole ground for rejection of his

application for grant of furlough. It has been held by the

Division Bench of this court that the court will have to take

instructions of the relevant facts and circumstances in each

of the case and no hard and fast rule can be applied.

5] The perusal of the record would reveal that the

petitioner was released on parole for a period of 30 days on

the ground of illness of his son. The petitioner had also

applied for extension of parole before the expiry of 90 days

of his surrender. However, that was not decided and it came

to be rejected only after applicant was required to be

arrested and brought back to the prison. It is further to be

noted that the petitioner had already been penalised by

imposing punishment of 1 x 5. It could thus be seen that

even a period of 90 days, which is the maximum period on

which the prisoner can be released on parole, had not

expired and before expiry of that period and without even

deciding the application for extension, the petitioner was

arrested.

6] In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, we find that merely because the

petitioner was required to be arrested cannot be a ground

for denying furlough. Hence, the following order :

7] Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The petitioner is

directed to be released on a furlough in accordance with the

law after following the procedure prescribed under the

Rules. The fees of the learned counsel appointed for the

petitioner are quantified at Rs.1500/-.

(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)

.........

Gulande, PA