Raviprakash Ramshiromani Singh vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6626 Bom

                                              1                                25-wp-143-21j.odt

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

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 143 OF 2021

  Raviprakash Ramshiromani Singh,
  Aged about 37 years,
  R/o. Amava (Khurd), Tah. Shahganj,
  District Jaunpur (UP)
  (C/5300, Central Prison, Amravati)                                     . . . PETITIONER

                         ...V E R S U S..

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

  2. Superintendent of Jail,
     Central Prison, Amravati                                        . . . RESPONDENTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 None for the petitioner.
 Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for respondents/State.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
                                        AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 22.04.2021

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 sought directions against the

respondent authorities to release the petitioner on furlough leave for a

period of 28 days.

2 25-wp-143-21j.odt

4. The petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable

under Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions

Judge, Mumbai. The petitioner had undergone imprisonment for 10

years 6 months on the date of filing of the application for furlough

leave. The petitioner was also arrested being member of gang on

26.07.2010 and was convicted under the provisions of The

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short

"MCOCA").

5. It is stated that earlier application filed by the petitioner for

furlough leave was kept pending by the respondent authorities. It is

further stated that on 01.10.2020, the petitioner filed fresh application

for furlough leave with respondent no. 1, which is still pending and

therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction

against the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave for

a period of 28 days.

6. This Court on 23.03.2021 issued notice to the respondents.

The respondent no. 2, on 19.04.2021 filed reply stating that the

petitioner has been convicted for offence under the provisions of

MCOCA and Indian Penal Code and is undergoing imprisonment for

life. It is stated that there is another criminal case pending against the

petitioner under Sections 397, 411 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code

before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaunpur, Utter Pradesh. It is

3 25-wp-143-21j.odt

further stated that the police report from his native place i.e. Jaunpur

is not received by the respondents. It is stated that as per the police

report dated 06.04.2021 by Crime Branch, Chembur, Mumbai, the

petitioner belongs to 'Bharat Nepali Gang'. It is stated in the said

report that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave, there is

possibility of threat to society. It is also stated that the respondent

no. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking furlough

leave by order dated 19.04.2021.

7. We have carefully considered the application of the

petitioner, material produced on record and the order dated

19.04.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2, in

its order dated 19.4.2021 has stated that the petitioner belongs to

'Bharat Nepali Gang', which is reflected in the police report sent by the

Crime Branch, Chambur, Mumbai on 06.04.2021. Apart from the said

report, it has been stated that there are other offences registered

against the petitioner at Jaunpur. It is also stated that the petitioner is

undergoing three terms of life imprisonment. It is therefore stated that

in view of Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(13) of Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai

Furlough and Parole)(Amendment) Rules, 2018, the petitioner is not

eligible for furlough leave.

8. We are therefore satisfied that adverse police report against

the petitioner is based on sufficient material to reach the conclusion

4 25-wp-143-21j.odt

that there is possibility of threat to society, if the petitioner is released

on furlough leave. We, therefore, do not find any illegal or compelling

circumstances to interfere with the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by

the respondent no. 2 rejecting furlough leave application of the

petitioner.

9. Hence, there is no merits in the petition and the same is

dismissed.

                             JUDGE                                          JUDGE


RR Jaiswal