Pratap Kashinath Chavan (In Jail) vs D.I.G. (Prisons) (E) (R) Nagpur ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 1076 Bom

                                             1              23judcwp1036.17.odt

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

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1036 OF 2017


            Pratap Kashinath Chavan,
            C- 3096, detained in Central Prison,
            Amravati.                      ........                          PETITIONER

                                  ...VERSUS...

 1]         D. I. G. (Prisons) (E)(R), Nagpur. 

 2]         The Superintendent,
            Central Prison, Amravati, 
            Dist. Amravati.                     ......              RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ms. S. D. Paul, Advocate for 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 convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498 of the Indian

Penal Code and is undergoing life imprisonment for that

purpose. The application is made by the petitioner for grant

2 23judcwp1036.17.odt

of furlough leave for a period of 28 days is rejected by order

dated 24.07.2017 and hence, this writ petition.

3] It is the stand taken by the respondents that the

case is covered by Rule 4(4)(10) of the Bombay (Furlough

and Parole) Rules, 1959. The submission is that the

petitioner was released on parole leave on 01.07.2016, but

he did not report on the due date and therefore, he was

required to be arrested after period of 86 days on 26.10.2016

and offence punishable under Section 224 of Indian Penal

Code was registered against him in Police Station

Samaraspur, Dist. Amravati vide crime No. 269/2016 in which

he was released on bail on 10.10.2016 by the learned First

Class Judicial Magistrate, Amravati.

4] It is not the contention raised that once an

offence is registered against the convict under Section 224 of

the Indian Penal Code, the convict is permanently debarred

from availing of parole and furlough leave. Last order of

releasing on parole leave was passed on 01.07.2016 and he

is entitled to make fresh application for furlough leave, if he

so desires after a period of six months of the rejection of his

3 23judcwp1036.17.odt

previous application, as per Rule 9 of the Rules.

5] It is not in dispute that after 26.10.2016, the

petitioner has neither availed nor released on parole and

furlough leave. The period of six months has already expired

and therefore, the ground for rejection under Sub-Rule 10 of

Rule 4 would not come in the way of the petitioner. The

petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough leave.

Otherwise, the entitlement of the petitioner for furlough leave

is not in dispute.

6] In view of above, the order dated 24.07.2017 is

quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to leave for

a period of 28 days commencing 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.

7] Learned appointed counsel appearing for the

petitioner shall be entitled to fees of Rs. 1500/- from High

4 23judcwp1036.17.odt

Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

                                JUDGE             JUDGE

 Gohane