Bombay High Court
Kisansingh Shersingh Babari vs Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 17-wp-300-21j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2021
Kisansingh Shersingh Babari,
Aged about 45 years,
(In Jail) Convict No. C-2515,
Central Prison, Amravati. . . . PETITIONER
...V E R S U S..
1. Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Prison,
Amravati. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. J. Dhoble, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N. R. Tripathi, A.P. P. for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 09.04.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
23.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting the application
for furlough leave of 21 days of the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner in the past had surrendered late.
2 17-wp-300-21j.odt
4. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 353, 224 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is
undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life. The petitioner has
undergone sentence of 12 years 10 months and 15 days on the date of
filing of the application for furlough leave. The petitioner on
29.01.2020 filed the application for furlough leave of 28 days. The
Superintendent of Police, Amravati Central Jail, where the petitioner is
undergoing the sentence, has not recommended the furlough leave of
the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 rejected the furlough leave of the
petitioner on the ground that the petitioner surrendered late by 854
days in the year 2005 and by 1731 days in the year 2011.
5. The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition
challenging the order dated 23.09.2020. We have carefully considered
the reasons stated in the impugned order. The respondent no. 1 has
rejected the furlough leave application of the petitioner relying on
Rules 4(6) and 4(10) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough
and Parole)(Amendment) Rules, 2018. The impugned order discloses
that punishment of 6 months had been imposed on the petitioner on
13.08.2016 for surrendering late. The impugned order reflects that
the petitioner had surrendered late by 854 days in the year 2005 and
in the year 2011 the petitioner surrender late by 1731 days.
3 17-wp-300-21j.odt
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Murlidhar
Ramchandra Bhalerao Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) ALLMR (Cri.)
2132] and in the case of Ramchandra Raghu Naik Vs. State of
Maharashtra, judgment dated 25.06.2013 in Criminal Writ Petition No.
224/2013 has held that if the prisoner released on furlough or parole
was required to be arrested for bringing him back in prison, then he
would not be entitled to be released on furlough or parole leave.
7. Though, in the facts of the present case, it is not being
brought on record that the petitioner was arrested on earlier occasion
but, it is equally true that surrendering late by 4 years 9 months
without explanation, is sufficient to reject the request of the petitioner
for furlough leave. It is well settled that furlough leave is not a matter
of absolute right but, the right is regulated under the Prisons (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. We, therefore, find no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.
8. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharge.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
