Niraj S/O Raju Ugale vs Superintendent Of Police, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2505 Bom

  Judgment                                1                         Cri.W.P.658.2020.odt



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

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2020


          Niraj S/o. Raju Ugale, C-5344
          Aged about 22 years,
          Presently lodged Central Prison,
          Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

                                                              .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       Superintendent of Police,
          Central Jail, Amravati.

 2)       DIG Prison East,
          Nagpur.
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri G. L. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Additional P.P. for the respondent.
 ______________________________________________________________

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

DATED : 08.02.2021.

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

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing

for the parties.

3. Furlough application of the petitioner has been rejected on

the ground that some threat to the witnesses at the hands of this

petitioner was perceived. The impugned order states that the source of

Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.658.2020.odt

the information received in that regard is secret. We have, therefore,

called for some details about this secret source. Today, a

communication dated 05.02.2011 addressed to the D.I.G. Prison,

Nagpur by Police Commissioner, Amravati has been placed before us.

On its perusal and also of the copies of the statements annexed to it,

we are satisfied that the apprehension so expressed is not fanciful and

has some reasonable basis. In order to maintain confidentiality of the

witnesses and just to secure their safety, we would not like to give the

details of the statements. Suffice it to say that the apprehension

expressed in these statements cannot be dismissed as baseless. We are

not therefore, inclined to make any interference in the matter at this

stage, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

We, however, grant liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh

application seeking furlough leave, on the ground of change in

circumstances or change of place of his temporary residence.

Let the communication dated 05.02.2011, after perusal is

returned to the learned Addl.P.P.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

Kirtak