Bombay High Court
Nitin S/O Nandkishor Guddhe vs State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy ... on 3 February, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
criwp14.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 14/2021
PETITIONER : Nitin Nandkishor Guddhe, aged about 31 years,
C-4394, detained in Central Prison, Amravati,
Distt. Amravati (PRESENTLY IN JAIL)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Deputy
Inspector of Prison (Eastern Region),
Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Radha Mishra, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.R.Patil, APP for respondent nos.1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 03/02/2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
.1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2] No doubt, the petitioner has overstayed after his release
on furlough in the year 2015 for about 27 days. This was the reason
why the furlough application of the petitioner has been rejected by
the impugned order. The impugned order, however, does not
criwp14.21.odt
consider the subsequent event which took place after one mistake
committed by the petitioner in the year 2015.
3] This Court by the order passed on 15.04.2019 in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 789 of 2018 had taken due note of such
overstay of the petitioner and had observed that the mistake had
occurred in the year 2015 and therefore, the petitioner was required
to be given one more chance considering the newly spelt out
objectives for parole and furlough leaves, which are for offering
correctional services to the convicts.
4] In compliance with this order, the petitioner was
granted furlough leave and was released on 01.06.2019. The
petitioner was to surrender before the Jail authority on 30.06.2019
and the petitioner, this time, did surrender himself on the due date.
Thus, the faith reposed by this Court in the petitioner was not
proved wrong by the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that
the impugned order not taking the subsequent event appropriately
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
criwp14.21.odt
5] In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave as per his
entitlement and on such conditions as could be suitably imposed
upon him in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from
the date of the order.
6] The legal remuneration of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two
Thousand Five Hundred) be paid to the learned appointed counsel.
7] Rule discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
