Parasram Bhagwan Bhone (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6762 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 628.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 628 of 2017

Parasram Bhagwan Bhone 
Aged about 55 years, 
R/o. Juni Gujarwadi, Post. 
Malegaon, Tah. Saoner, 
District Nagpur. 
(C/45, Central Prison, Nagpur)                                               .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

(1) Deputy Inspector General of
      Prison (East Region), Nagpur. 

(2) Superintendent of Jail, 
      Central Prison, Nagpur.                                            .... Respondents

Ms. S. B. Khobragade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, 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 rejecting the

.....2/-

2 jg.cri.wp 628.17.odt

application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave on the ground

that on the earlier occasion, the petitioner has not surrendered on due

date.

Mrs. Tripathi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

supported the impugned order. It is stated that on the earlier occasion,

the petitioner had not surrendered on due date and he was required to

be brought to the prison 20 days after the due date. It is submitted that

since the petitioner is in the habit of surrendering belatedly, the

impugned order may not be interfered with.

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

on a perusal of the impugned order that even after the petitioner was

required to be brought in the prison by the police 20 days after the expiry

of parole leave, the petitioner was again released on furlough leave

during the last year and the petitioner had surrendered on due date.

There appears to be only a small delay on the part of the petitioner in

surrendering in the prison. One more opportunity needs to be granted to

the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner would surrender on due date if

he is released on furlough leave.

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 628.17.odt

We do not find any propriety in the rejection of furlough

leave application of the petitioner on the ground that the wife of the

petitioner would not be a proper surety as she does not possess any

landed property, specially when on the previous occasion the respondents

had accepted the surety furnished by the wife of the petitioner.

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

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

should be released on furlough leave within 7 days from the date on

which the wife 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




                                                                                            ...../-