Rais Ahmed Hanif Ansari (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6998 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 517.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 517 of 2017

Rais Ahmed Hanif Ansari, 
Convict no. C-62, 
Presently in Open Prison, Nagpur.                                            .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

(1) State of Maharashtra through
      Deputy Inspector General 
      Prisons (Eastern Region), Nagpur. 

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

Ms. S. H. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed)
Shri P. S. Tembhare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents     
                                                         
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                 M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 11-9-2017.

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

20-12-2016 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of

furlough leave.

.....2/-

2 jg.cri.wp 517.17.odt

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has

undergone the sentence of more than 11 years and the petitioner is

placed in Open Prison because of his good conduct. It is stated that this

is the first time that the petitioner has sought for furlough leave and the

relative of the petitioner at Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh is ready to furnish

surety for the release of the petitioner. It is stated that in the aforesaid

set of facts the furlough leave application of the petitioner is wrongfully

rejected.

We find that the D.I.G. Prisons rejected the furlough leave

application of the petitioner because the petitioner is the resident of

Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh. Since this is the first time that the petitioner

is seeking furlough leave and the conduct of the petitioner is good, it

would be necessary to granted furlough leave to the petitioner to

consider whether he would surrender to the prison on the due date.

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 7 days from the date on

which the relative of the petitioner furnishes the surety, as is required by

Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Order

accordingly.

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 517.17.odt

The professional fees of the learned counsel for the petitioner

are quantified at Rs. 1500/-.

                  JUDGE                                          JUDGE



wasnik




                                                                                       ...../-