Rajput @ Nabut Patiram Parteki vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17561 Bom

                                                   1                     crwp721.21.odt



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

              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.721 OF 2021

     Rajput alias Nabut Patiram Parteki,
     Aged about 32 years,
     R/o Near Gopal Gaidhane's House,
     Umred Road, Siraspeth, Nagpur.
     (C/8756, Central Prison, Nagpur)
                                                                     ...PETITIONER

                                   ...V E R S U S...

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

2. Superintendent of Jail,
     Central Prison, Nagpur.                                    ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms S.B. Khobragade, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CORAM:- M.S. SONAK AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE :- 16th DECEMBER, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (M.S. SONAK, J.)

Heard Ms. S.B. Khobragade, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Ms. N.R. Tripathi learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondents.

2. Rule. The Rule is returnable forthwith at the request

of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order by

which furlough has been declined to him. The only ground set out 2 crwp721.21.odt

in the impugned order is that sometime in the year 2011, the

petitioner had been granted furlough but the petitioner jumped

the conditions and had to be apprehended after almost 935 days

to suffer the rest of the imprisonment.

4. There is no question condoning the lapse on the part

of the petitioner. However, the record bears out that the petitioner

was already convicted under Section 224 for this lapse. Besides,

there is a record that since 2013, the conduct of the petitioner is

quite good. Ms. Khobragade, learned counsel pointed out that that

the petitioner is also been appointed as the watchman at the

prison and this position is not disputed in reply filed on behalf of

the respondents. In similar circumstances, this Court, vide

judgment and order dated 23.11.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition

No.666 of 2021 granted relief to the prisoner though the record

has indicated his late surrender in the year 2011. To grant such

relief, this Court relied upon several earlier precedents on the

issue.

5. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as also the

reasoning in our judgment dated 23.11.2021 in Criminal Writ

Petition No.666 of 2021 we think that the present petitioner is

entitled to relief.

3 crwp721.21.odt

6. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated

30.07.2021 and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on

furlough leave for 28 days on his executing PR bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount and cash

surety of Rs.25,000/-. The respondents are at liberty to impose

such other and further conditions to ensure the return of the

petitioner after availing of furlough leave. However, it is made

clear that such conditions should be reasonable and not aimed at

frustrating the relief that we have now granted to the petitioner.

7. The respondents to issue necessary orders within 15

days from today.

The rule is made absolute. There shall be no order for

costs.

(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)

Wagh

Signed By:SURESH RAOSAHEB WAGH Personal Assistant to the Hon'ble Judge Signing Date:17.12.2021 10:33