Sachin Sukhdeo Jaronde (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2054 Bom

                                                                                        1
                                                                            wp166.2020.odt

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


                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.166/2020


 Sachin Sukhdeo Jaronde,
 aged about 37 Yrs., R/o Sirur
 Satgaon, Vyankatesh City, Wardha
 Road, Nagpur (C/7677, Central
 Prison, Nagpur).                                                               ..Petitioner.

          ..Vs..

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

 2.       Superintendent of Jail, Open
          Prison, Gadchiroli.                                                 ..Respondents.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ms S.B. Khobragade, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, A.P.P. for the respondents.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           CORAM :-        SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                           AVINASH G. GHAROTE , JJ.

DATED :- 1.2.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

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

and Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, A.P.P. for the respondents. Rule. Rule made

returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his application for

grant of furlough leave. According to learned counsel for the

wp166.2020.odt

petitioner that after 2016, the petitioner has improved his conduct and

that is the reason why the petitioner was assigned some labour work.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the petition contending that the petitioner has

formed a habit of not surrendering on due dates after his release on

parole and furlough and, therefore, no faith could be expressed in the

goodness of the petitioner.

3. The reply filed on behalf of the respondents gives a chart of the

earlier defaults committed by the petitioner. These defaults do

indicate conduct of the petitioner from which one can reasonably say

that the petitioner is habitual defaulter and, therefore, there is no

assurance that if released on furlough leave, the petitioner would not

once again repeat his previous behaviour. Such conduct of the

petitioner is also violative of the conditions of eligibility for furlough,

in particular those stated in rule 4(10) and rule 4(20) of the Prisons

(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Therefore, no infirmity

could be noticed in the impugned order dated 18.1.2020. The

petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

                               JUDGE                                JUDGE


 Tambaskar.