Bombay High Court
Rohit S/O Prem Baghel vs Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 20 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 39.Cr.W.P.No.488.2021-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.488 OF 2021
Rohit S/o. Prem Baghel,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Nill,
R/o. Kalamna Market, Chikali,
Quarter No.250, Nagpur,
Dist. Nagpur.
Convict No. (C/5292) ....PETITIONER
---- VERSUS ----
1. Deputy Inspector General Prison,
East, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent Central Prison,
Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 20.08.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated
04.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting furlough leave
application of the petitioner for a period of 28 days.
4. The petitioner is a convict for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life. The petitioner had completed 8
years in prison on the date of filing of application of parole. The
petitioner applied for furlough leave on 11.01.2021, which has been
rejected by the impugned order dated 04.06.2021.
5. The petitioner has therefore, filed present petition
challenging the said order. This Court on 30.07.2021, issued notice
to the respondents. The respondents have filed reply dated
06.08.2021 stating that while the petitioner was released on
emergency parole leave on 08.09.2021, the petitioner was found
with sword and therefore, Crime No.695/2020 for the offence
punishable under Section 4/25 of Arms Act and Section 135 of the
Bombay Police Act came to be registered against the petitioner.
Taking note of the said event, the concerned Police Station has
submitted adverse report against the petitioner. In addition to the
said fact, the respondents in their reply have stated that the
petitioner is a quarrelsome person and used to fight with co-convicts
and therefore, punishment of cut in remission for a period of 30
days was imposed on him. Thereafter, again on 07.04.2019, the
petitioner quarreled with other prisoners and punishment of 50
days cut in remission had been approved. It is therefore, submitted
that the petitioner is not eligible for being released in view of Rule
4(4) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2018.
6. We have carefully considered the impugned order and
the reply filed by the respondents. On consideration of the reply
filed, we are satisfied that the police report submitted by the
concerned Police Station is based on the material which has been
produced along with the report. The material relying upon by the
police to hold that there is likelihood of breach of peace and
tranquility in the concerned area, was the registration of offence
against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was found
with sword and registration of Crime No.695/2020 for offences
punishable under Sections 4/25 of Arms Act and Section 135 of the
Bombay Police Act. In addition to the said fact, the respondents
have brought on record quarrelsome nature of the petitioner
resulting into imposition of cut in remission of prison sentence of
the petitioner.
7. On overall consideration of the impugned order and the
reply filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the rejection of
furlough leave application by the respondent No.1 was according to
law and hence, there is no merit in the petition.
8. The petition is dismissed.
9. Rule is discharged. Pending application(s), if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
