Bombay High Court
Satendra S/O. Rudal Pandit (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. D.I.G. ... on 22 November, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp955.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.955 OF 2017
Satendra s/o. Rudal Pandit,
Convict No.C-400, Open Prison
Morshi, Distt. Amravati. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through D.I.G., Prison
(East), Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent of Open
Prison, Morshi, Distt.
Amravati. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.A.Y.Sharma, Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner.
Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2017 00:57:25 :::
2 wp955.17.odt
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 22nd November, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent
of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner/convict applied for furlough leave on
21.1.2017. The said application came to be rejected by respondent
no.1 vide order dt.5.8.2017. The said order is under challenge in this
petition.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 364-A, 302 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years, seven years on two counts and to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the respective offences.
Since the date of conviction, the petitioner is in jail. Petitioner has
3 wp955.17.odt
completed 13 years in jail. Petitioner is eligible for furlough leave. It
is submitted that the respondents/Authorities have failed to consider
that the petitioner has already undergone sentence imposed by the
trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 364-A
of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, rule 4(13) of the Prisons
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 is not applicable to the
petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal and
liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. The respondents filed reply and submitted that, as per
rule 4(13) of the Rules, the application for furlough is rightly
rejected by the respondent no.1.
5. Heard Mr.A.Y.Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and
2. Perused the impugned order. The application for furlough leave is
rejected only on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 364, 364-A of the Indian Penal
Code and as per rule 4(13) of the Rules, he is not entitled for
furlough leave. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has
undergone jail sentence for the offences punishable under Sections
4 wp955.17.odt
364 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. This fact is not considered
by respondent no.1. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed and set aside. Hence we pass the following order.
// ORDER //
The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a) of thereof.
The respondents are directed to release the
petitioner on furlough leave for a period of 21 days
after his furnishing surety of nearest relative as per
rule six.
Petitioner is directed to visit Police Station,
Sonpur, District Chapara (Saran), Bihar twice in a
week.
He shall surrender before the Prison Authorities
on the due date.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
5 wp955.17.odt
Fees of the learned Counsel appointed for the
petitioner is quantified at Rs.1,500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
6 wp955.17.odt
