Arif Bakash Mehebub Bakash vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7429 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 875.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 875 of 2017

Arif Bakash Mahebub Bakash, 
Convict No. C/9537, Aged 32 
years, Occ. Nil, Confined at Central 
Prison, Nagpur.                                                              .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

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

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

Ms. Shweta D. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri K. R. Lule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents             
                                                         
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                 M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 21-9-2017.

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

22-6-2017 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough

.....2/-

                                         2                                      jg.cri.wp 875.17.odt

leave.  

The application of the petitioner is rejected on the ground

that Seema Bakas who was ready to furnish surety for release of the

petitioner has not given any proof of possessing any landed property and

she would not be in a position to keep control over the petitioner. The

application is also rejected by relying on Rule 4(11) of the Prisons

(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 as the appeal filed by the

petitioner against the judgment of his conviction is pending.

Ms. Wankhede, the learned counsel for the petitioner states

that the mother of the petitioner is ready to furnish surety as required by

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

stated that the application could not have been rejected by relying on

Rule 4(11). It is submitted that this Court has prima facie observed in a

couple of writ petitions that Rule 4(11) is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Since the mother of the petitioner is ready to furnish surety

as is required by Rule 6 of the Rules and since we have, in several writ

petitions where Rule 4(11) is challenged, directed the respondents to

release the petitioners in the said writ petitions on parole or furlough

leave, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the impugned order

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 875.17.odt

and grant the prayer made in the writ petition.

Hence, 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

mother of the petitioner furnishes the surety, as is required by Rule 6 of

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

accordingly.

                  JUDGE                                         JUDGE



wasnik




                                                                                      ...../-