Narendrasingh S/O Nanksingh ... vs The Suprintendent Of Prison, ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 325 Bom

                                                1              criwp1259.17.odt

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

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1259 OF 2017


            Narendrasingh s/o Nanaksingh Digwa
            (In Jail)
            Convict No. C-9435
            Central Prison, Nagpur........                                   PETITIONER

                                  ...VERSUS...

 1]         The Superintendent of Prison,
            Central Prison, Nagpur        ......                             RESPONDENT

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri N.H.Samundre, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri A.M.Deshpande, Addl.P.P for respondent 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                        M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                          th
                           Date      : 11     JANUARY, 2018 .

 JUDGMENT (P.C.)

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2] The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division,

Nagpur, by his order dated 14.12.2017 has granted sanction

for release of the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days

in exercise of his powers conferred by Rule 18(2) of the

Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, by

2 criwp1259.17.odt

imposing certain terms and conditions. The petitioner is

ready and willing to comply with all the terms and conditions

imposed in such order, but the authorities have refused to

follow the said order and release the petitioner on parole.

3] In the affidavit filed by the respondent, reliance

is placed upon Rule 19(2)(C)(ii) of the Prisons (Bombay

Furlough and Parole) Rules to urge that the petitioner would

not be entitled to release on parole prior to 05.04.2018, which

is the date on which the petitioner would complete a period of

6 months after his first release on furlough on 05.10.2017.

4] We are surprised with such a stand taken by the

respondent, firstly for the reason that instead of implementing

the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the

authorities have refused to release the petitioner on parole

and secondly, even on merits, we are not satisfied with the

stand taken by the respondent. The petitioner was released

on furlough leave by an order dated 13.09.2017 and he

reported in prison on 05.10.2017. No doubt, if the furlough

leave is to be granted, it cannot be within a period of 6

months from 05.10.2017.

                                                 3             criwp1259.17.odt




           5]              In the present case, we are concerned with grant

of parole leave to the petitioner. The petitioner has completed

more than 3 years of his imprisonment counted from the date

of admission to prison and till this date, he was not released

on regular parole. The order dated 14.12.2017 passed by

the Divisional Commissioner is the first release of the

petitioner on parole and therefore, it is covered by Rule 19(2)

(C)(i) of the said Rules. The provisions of Rule 19(2)(C)(ii)

applies to next release on regular parole and not to furlough.

In view of this, we cannot sustain the action on the part of the

respondent. The petition will have to be allowed.

6] In the result, writ petition is allowed. The

respondent is directed to release the petitioner on parole as

per the order dated 14.12.2017 with effect from 15.01.2018.

Prior to that date, all compliances should be made. No order

as to cost.

                                JUDGE                          JUDGE

 Rvjalit