Firoz Chandkha Pathan (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7433 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 833.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 833 of 2017

Firoz Chandkha Pathan
Aged about 28 years, 
R/o. Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur. 
(C/9049, Central Prison, Nagpur)                                             .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

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

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

Ms. S. B. Khobragade, Advocate for the petitioner 
Ms. T. H. Khan, 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

23-8-2017 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough

leave.

.....2/-

2 jg.cri.wp 833.17.odt

Three reasons are recorded by the Deputy Inspector General

of Prisons for rejecting the furlough leave application of the petitioner.

The furlough leave application is 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. The

other reason recorded in the impugned order for rejecting the application

is that Smt. Ifriz who is ready to furnish surety would not be able to keep

control over the petitioner. It is also recorded in the impugned order that

if the petitioner is released on furlough, it is likely that he would commit

a serious offence.

We are not impressed by any of the reasons recorded by the

Deputy Inspector General of Prisons for rejecting the furlough leave

application. We are prima facie of the view that the provisions of Rule

4(11) are arbitrary and unreasonable. In the writ petitions where the

said rule is challenged, we have directed the respondents to release the

petitioners in the said writ petitions on furlough leave. Also, merely

because the woman, who is ready to furnish surety is of 38 years of age,

it cannot be said that she would not be able to keep a watch on the

petitioner. No reason is recorded in the impugned order for observing

that if the petitioner is released on furlough, there is a likelihood that he

would be involved in serious offences. In the circumstances of the case,

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 833.17.odt

the impugned order cannot be sustained.

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 relative of the petitioner furnishes the surety,

as is required by Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)

Rules, 1959.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

                  JUDGE                                          JUDGE



wasnik




                                                                                       ...../-