Gajanan Haridas Gavrane (In Jail) vs State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2423 Bom

cwp229.20                             1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH

        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2020


Gajanan Haridas Gavrane
(C-5391), detained in
Open Prison Central Jail,
Amravati (presently in Jail)               ... PETITIONER

            Versus

1. State of Maharashtra
   through Deputy Inspector
   of Prison (Eastern Region),
   Nagpur.

2. The Superintendent of Open
   Prison, Central Jail, Amravati.         ... RESPONDENTS


Shri K.C. Deogade, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
Shri I.J. Damle, APP for the respondents.
                   .....


                         CORAM :      DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J. &
                                      PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

FEBRUARY 05, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.)

Heard Shri K.C. Deogade, learned counsel

(appointed) for the petitioner and Shri I.J. Damle, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order

dated 17.01.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the

application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave for a

period of 21 days came to be dismissed for the following

reasons :

(i) The Police verification report dated 22.11.2019

reflects that the surety Shri Vilas Dattuji Pusnake did not turn

up to furnish surety and there is no clarity about his financial

competency to furnish surety.

(ii) The witnesses and neighbours have taken objection

for release of the petitioner on furlough leave with the

apprehension that he may breach the peace in the locality.

3. Shri Deogade, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner in his application dated 22.11.2019

has clearly mentioned the name of his father i.e. Haridas

Shamrao Gavrane, who would stand as a surety. In support of

his contention, the learned counsel pointed out a copy of letter

at page 11 of the application sent by the petitioner to this

office.

4. As against this, Shri Damle, learned APP appearing

for the respondents has filed an affidavit in reply supporting

the impugned order.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced on

behalf of both sides and perused the record.

6. At the outset, the petitioner is said to be convicted

for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the

Indian Penal Code and is undergoing life imprisonment. Rule

1(A) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules,

1959, (hereinafter referred to as 1959 Rules) set out the

objectives for grant of furlough and parole leave as progressive

measures of correctional services. These objectives are as

under :

"(a) To enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family members,

(b) To save him from evil effects of continuous

prison life,

(c) To enable him to maintain and develop his self-

confidence,

(d) To enable him to develop constructive hope and active interest in life."

7. Undisputedly, this is first application of the

petitioner before the Jail Superintendent for his furlough leave

after undergoing sentence of more than three years. As per

Rule 3(C) of the 1959 Rules, if a prisoner is sentenced to

imprisonment for a period exceeding fourteen years, he shall

be eligible for furlough on completion of three years of actual

imprisonment, however, the prisoner shall not be given

furlough exceeding 21 days in a calender year for the first five

years of his imprisonment and thereafter for the period not

exceeding 28 days.

8. Rule 4 of the 1959 Rules deals with eligibility for

grant of furlough leave. There are 21 exceptions set out in this

Rule for not considering grant of furlough leave.

9. Shri Damle, learned APP could not point out in the

present case, as to how the petitioner is not eligible under Rule

4 of the 1959 Rules, except Exception no. 15 i.e. failure to give

surety for maintaining peace and good behaviour. Insofar as

the apprehension of the neighbours and witnesses is

concerned, that can be taken care of by imposing suitable

conditions on the petitioner.

10. Considering the avowed object to grant furlough

and parole leaves as set out in Rule 1(A) of the 1959 Rules,

which has been inserted vide Notification

No.MIS-1316/C.R.669/16/PRS-3, dated 16.04.2018 i.e. to

enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life

and deal with family members, to save him from evil effects of

continuous prison life, to enable him to maintain and develop

his self-confidence and to enable him to develop constructive

hope and active interest in life; in the opinion of this Court, it

is a fit case to remand the matter to the respondent no. 2 to

decide the same afresh in the light of the above observations

and in accordance with law, if the petitioner furnishes

competent surety.

11. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

12. The fee of Shri Deogade, learned counsel appointed

for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.1,500/- (Rs. One thousand

five hundred only).

(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

*******

*GS.

Digitally signed by Gopichand Shamdasani Gopichand Date:

Shamdasani 2021.02.05 14:53:57 +0530