Bombay High Court
Suhas Anil Khairkar vs The Deputy General (Prisons) ... on 21 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 37.Cr.W.P.No.459.2021-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.459 OF 2021
Suhas Anil Khairkar,
Aged 24 years, Convict No. C/5548,
Presently at Central Prison, Amravati. ....PETITIONER
---- VERSUS ----
1. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East)
Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent Central Prison,
Amravati. ....RESPONDENTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shri Shahrukh Shah, Advocate h/f. Shri M. N. Ali, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Ms N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 21.08.2021.
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
07.05.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 thereby refusing to
release the petitioner on furlough leave.
4. The petitioner is a convict for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 449 of the Indian
Penal Code. The petitioner has undergone 3 years of imprisonment
on the date of filing of furlough leave application. The petitioner
applied for grant of furlough leave on 11.12.2020. The respondent
No.1 by order dated 07.05.2021 rejected the application for
furlough leave of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has therefore, challenged the order
dated 07.05.2021 by filing present petition. This Court on
02.07.2021, issued notice to the respondents. The respondent No.2
has filed reply dated 18.07.2021 stating that the surety furnished by
the petitioner is not eligible. It is stated that if the petitioner is
released on furlough leave, there will be question of law and order
in the said area.
6. We have carefully considered the impugned order and
the reply filed by the respondent No.2. On consideration of the
impugned order, it appears that the respondent No.1 has rejected
furlough leave application relying on the adverse police report
submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal. On perusal of
the report and reply, it appears that the basic facts and the material
in support of the apprehension that there is apprehension of breach
of peace and tranquility in the area, is absent. This Court in various
judgments has taken consistent view that unless and until the
adverse police report is based on a material justifying such report,
the furlough leave application of the prisoner cannot be rejected.
On consideration of the material produced on record by the
respondents, we are satisfied that neither the police report nor the
reply submitted by the respondent No.2 reflect the material so as to
justify apprehension of breach of peace and tranquility in case the
petitioner is released on furlough leave.
7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner made a
statement that the petitioner is ready to furnish fresh surety if
required by the Police Authorities.
8. In view of the above, we pass the following order :
i. The impugned order dated 07.05.2021 passed by the
respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondent No.1 is directed to grant furlough leave
of 21 days to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as the
respondent No.1 deems fit and proper within a period of two weeks
from today.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
