Ravindrasingh @ Bunty S/O. ... vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7341 Bom

 2009CRWP811.17-Judgment                                                                        1/2


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


               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.  811   OF   2017

 PETITIONER :-                        Ravindrasingh   @   Bunty   S/o   Rajendrasingh
                                      Anand,   Aged   about   41   years,   R/o   Plot
                                      No.860,   Chambar   Nala,   Boudha   Nagar,
                                      Nagpur.
                                      (C/9441, Central Prison, Nagpur)

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1) Deputy   Inspector   General   of   Prison   (East
                                    Region), Nagpur. 
                                 2) Superintendent   of   Jail,   Central   Prison,
                                    Nagpur. 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Ms S.B.Khobragade, counsel for the petitioner.
        Mr. P.S.Tembhare, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    M. G. GIRATKAR
                                                                   ,   JJ.

DATED : 20.09.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (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 D.I.G. (Prisons), Nagpur dated 17/08/2017, rejecting the

2009CRWP811.17-Judgment 2/2

application for furlough leave solely on the ground that the name of the

surety is not mutated in respect of the residential house which is his

ancestral property.

3. We do not appreciate the reason recorded by the D.I.G.

(Prisons), Nagpur in the impugned order for rejecting the furlough

leave application. The impugned order itself records that the house in

which the relative of the petitioner resides and is ready to furnish

surety, is his ancestral property. If that be so, only because the name of

the relative is not mutated in the revenue records, the application for

furlough leave could not have been rejected.

4. Since the impugned order cannot be sustained, 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 seven days from the date on which the relative of the petitioner

furnishes surety, as is required by rule 6 of the Prison (Bombay

Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Rule is made absolute in the

aforesaid terms. No costs.

                        JUDGE                                              JUDGE 
 KHUNTE