Bombay High Court
Sanaullakha Ahmadkha vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 8 September, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp794.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.794 OF 2017
Sanaullakha Ahmadkha,
C/4727, Central Prison,
Amravati District, Amravati. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Deputy Inspector
General of Prison, Nagpur,
Eastern Region, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent,
Central Prison, Amravati,
Distt. Amravati. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Ms R.V.Ramteke, Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner.
Mrs.Nandita Tripathi, A.P.P. for Respondents 1 and 2.
_______________________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:34:38 :::
2 wp794.17.odt
CORAM : SMT VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 8.9.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the
order of the D.I.G. Prisons, Nagpur, dt.18.3.2017 rejecting the
application of the petitioner for furlough leave.
Ms R.V.Ramteke, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
states that the application of the petitioner is wrongly rejected on the
ground that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave, he would
again involve himself in a crime. It is stated that, on the earlier
occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough leave, he did not
commit any untoward act and had also surrendered on the due date. It
is stated that the second reason for rejecting the furlough leave
3 wp794.17.odt
application by resorting to the provisions of Rule 4(11) of the Prisons
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1989 is improper.
Mrs.Nandita Tripathi, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has supported the order. It is,
however, fairly admitted that the petitioner has already undergone the
sentence for a period of nearly six years. It is stated that the furlough
leave application is rejected in view of Rule 4 (11) of the Rules.
We find that Rule 4(11) of the Rules is challenged in a
couple of Writ Petitions and in those Writ Petitions, this Court has
directed the respondents to release the petitioners therein on furlough
leave as prima facie, according to this Court, Rule 4 (11) would be
arbitrary and bad in law.
We also do not find any propriety in the other reason
recorded in the impugned order for rejecting the furlough leave
application. The petitioner has already undergone the sentence for
nearly six years and on the earlier occasion when the petitioner was
4 wp794.17.odt
released on furlough leave, there was no complaint against the
petitioner.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents
are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave within seven
days from the date on which the relative of the petitioner furnishes
surety as is required by Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and
Parole) Rules, 1959.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
The professional fees of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner are quantified at Rs.1,500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
*jaiswal
5 wp794.17.odt
