Arun S/O. Laxman Hatwar (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7227 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 524.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 524 of 2017

Arun S/o Laxman Hatwar
Aged about 55 years, 
R/o. Old Bagadganj, Bhandara Road, 
Near Hanuman Mandir, Nagpur
District Nagpur (P.S. Lakadganj, Nagpur)
(C/6307, Central Prison, Nagpur)                                             .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

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

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

Ms. S. B. Khobragade, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri P. S. Tembhare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents     
                                                         
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                 M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 15-9-2017.

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.

2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the

order of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagpur dated

2-2-2017 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough

.....2/-

                                         2                                      jg.cri.wp 524.17.odt

leave.  

3. The furlough leave of the petitioner is rejected by recording

two reasons. Firstly, according to the Deputy Inspector General of

Prisons, when the petitioner was earlier released on furlough or parole

leave, he had surrendered belatedly after 28 days, 6 days, 10 days, 6

days, 87 days and 2 days. Also, according to the respondents, the wife of

the petitioner - Smt. Shobha Hatwar, who is ready to furnish surety for

the petitioner would not be able to keep control over the petitioner. It is

stated in the impugned order that offence is registered against the wife of

the petitioner under Sections 448, 427, 452 read with Section 34 of the

Penal Code.

4. In the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant an

opportunity to the petitioner to mend his ways. When the petitioner was

earlier released on furlough or parole leave, though he has surrendered

belatedly, on the last occasion in the year 2015, he has surrendered

only 2 days after the due date. Merely because an offence is pending

against the wife of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the wife of the

petitioner would not be able to keep control over the petitioner. Since

the learned counsel for the petitioner states that on this occasion, the

petitioner would surrender on the due date, it would be necessary to

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 524.17.odt

quash and set aside the impugned order and grant the prayer made by

the petitioner.

5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal 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 wife of the petitioner furnishes surety, as is

required by the Rules. Order accordingly.

                  JUDGE                                          JUDGE



wasnik




                                                                                       ...../-