Bombay High Court
Gautam Namdeo Narvade (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 20 September, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2009CRWP844.17-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 844 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- Gautam Namdeo Narvade, Aged above 54
years, C/397, Open Prison Morshi, District
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy
Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur, Eastern
Region, Nagpur.
2) Superintendent, Open Prison Morshi,
District Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms R.V.Rameteke, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.Nandita Tripathi, 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 05/04/2017 rejecting the
2009CRWP844.17-Judgment 2/3
application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave.
3. Ms Ramteke, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that the furlough leave application of the petitioner was wrongfully
rejected on the statement of the police patil, sarpanch and few others
that the petitioner should not be released on furlough, specially when
the petitioner has already undergone nearly 13 years of sentence. It is
stated that merely because the appeal filed by the petitioner against the
order of his conviction is pending, the application of the petitioner
could not have been rejected.
4. Mrs.Tripathi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents, has supported the impugned order. It is
stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending and hence his
application was rejected by resorting to the provisions of rule 4(11) of
the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. It is stated that
since the petitioner may commit similar offence, the application of the
petitioner was rejected.
5. We do not find any propriety in the reason recorded by the
D.I.G. (Prisons) in the impugned order for rejecting the application of
the petitioner. Merely because the appeal of the petitioner against the
2009CRWP844.17-Judgment 3/3
judgment of his conviction is pending, in our view, the furlough leave
application cannot be rejected. Rule 4(11) of the Rules of 1959 is
challenged in more than a couple of writ petitions in this court and in
those writ petitions, this court has directed the respondents to release
the petitioners therein on furlough leave. Also, merely because the
sarpanch and the police patil of the village have stated that the
petitioner should not be released on furlough leave, the application of
the petitioner could not have been rejected, more so when the
petitioner has already undergone the sentence of nearly 13 years.
6. 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 relatives of the petitioner furnishes
surety, as is required by rule 6 of the Rules of 1959. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
The professional fees of the learned counsel for the
petitioner are quantified at Rs.1,500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
