Shuddodhan @ Sudhakar Sukhdev ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 1074 Bom

                                             1              26judcwp1060.17.odt

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

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1060 OF 2017


            Sudhakar Sukhdev Ramteke,
            Convict No. 498,
            Aged Major, Occ. Nil,
            Confined at Open Prison, 
            Morshi, Dist. Amravati              ........                     PETITIONER

                                  ...VERSUS...

 1]         State of Maharashtra through
            the Deputy Inspector Gender of Prison,
            Eastern Region, Nagpur.

 2]         The Superintendent,
            Open Prison, Morshi, 
            Dist. Amravati.                    ......               RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ku. S. B. Saikhede, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Ms. N. R. Tripathi, Additional Government Pleader for respondents.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                        M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                          th
                           Date      : 29     JANUARY, 2018 .

  JUDGMENT ( Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2] The petitioner is undergoing the sentence for life

imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections

2 26judcwp1060.17.odt

302, 636 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is

undergoing life imprisonment and has completed ten years

period in the prison.

3] The application for grant of furlough leave is

rejected under the provisions of Rule 4(4)(10) of the Bombay

(Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. It is not in dispute that

the petitioner was released on furlough leave on 21.02.2012,

but he did not report the prison on due date and he was

required to be arrested after 35 days on 18.04.2012. The

petitioner was thereafter, again released on furlough leave on

25.05.2015, but he surrendered late by 14 days on

23.06.2015. There is no permanent debarment for claiming

the furlough leave on the ground that while availing the

earlier period of leave, he was required to be arrested. The

period of six months has expired from the last surrendered of

the petitioner on 23.06.2015. In terms and condition of Rule

9 of Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2016, the

petitioner cannot therefore, be denied furlough leave.

4] In view of above, writ petition is allowed. The

order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Deputy Inspector

General of Prison, is hereby quashed and set aside. The

3 26judcwp1060.17.odt

petitioner is entitled to leave for a period of 28 days from 12 th

February, 2018 subject to terms and conditions as may be

imposed by the Competent Authority for releasing him on

furlough leave. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to

report on the due date upon expiry of furlough leave, his

further leave for a period of 28 days shall stand forfeited.

                                JUDGE                         JUDGE

 Gohane