Gokul S/O. Orilal Joshi (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. D.I.G. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6760 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 803.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 803 of 2017

Gokul S/o Orilal Joshi
Convict No. C-6593, 
Central Prison, Nagpur
Dist. Nagpur.                                                                .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

(1) State of Maharashtra through
      D.I.G. Prison,(East) Nagpur. 

(2) The Superintendent of Central
      Prison, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.                                        .... Respondents

Shri A. Y. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. T. H. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents             
                                                       
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                   M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 4-9-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ

petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges

the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagpur dated

24-7-2017 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of

.....2/-

                                           2                                      jg.cri.wp 803.17.odt

furlough leave.  

Ms. Khan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

for the respondents states that the application of the petitioner was

rightly rejected as in the year 2011, the petitioner did not surrender on

due date and he was required to be brought to the prison 959 days after

the expiry of the parole leave. It is stated that the petitioner has

belatedly surrendered on a number of occasions and hence the furlough

leave application of the petitioner was rejected. It is stated that the

mother-in-law of the petitioner is ready to furnish surety but she would

not be able to control the petitioner.

We do not find any propriety in either of the reasons

recorded by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons for rejecting the

application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave. Though the

petitioner was required to be brought to the prison 959 days after the

expiry of parole leave in the year 2011, thereafter the petitioner had

improved and in the year 2016, he had surrendered belatedly, only

one day after the expiry of the furlough leave. This time, the petitioner

has undertaken to surrender on the due date. Since on the last occasion,

the petitioner had belatedly surrendered, a day after expiry of the

furlough leave, an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 803.17.odt

improve himself, more so, when the petitioner has already undergone

the sentence of more than 10 years. It was not proper on the part of the

Deputy Inspector General of Prisons to reject the application for furlough

leave on the ground that the mother-in-law of the petitioner would not

be able to control him. The said observation has no basis.

Hence, in the circumstances of the case, we allow the writ

petition and quash and set aside the impugned order. The respondents

are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave within 7 days

from the date on which the mother-in-law of the petitioner furnishes the

surety as required by Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and

Parole) Rules, 1959. Order accordingly.

                  JUDGE                                            JUDGE



wasnik




                                                                                         ...../-