Kisansingh S/O Shersingh Babri @ ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2506 Bom

 Judgment                                 1                          Cri.W.P.69.2021.odt


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

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 69 OF 2021


          Prisoner No. C-2515
          Kisansingh S/o Shersingh Babri @ Bawri,
          Aged about 42 years, Occu. - Prisoner,
          R/o. Ward No.1, Near Govt. Rest House,
          Post-Kelzar, Tq. Selu, Dist. Wardha.
          (Presently District Prison, Amravati)

                                                              .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       State of Maharashtra,
          through The Deputy Inspector
          General of Prison, Eastern Region,
          Wardha Road, Nagpur.

 2)       The Superintendent of Central
          Prison, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri L. B. Thawkar, counsel for the petitioner.
      Ms H. N. Jaipurkar, A.P.P. for the respondents.
 ______________________________________________________________

                           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.

Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.69.2021.odt

2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing

for the parties.

3. From the impugned order itself it is seen that the petitioner

has developed a habit of jumping the furlough whenever same was

granted to him and his late surrender is not just after a delay of a few

days but it is after such delay as 854 days and 1731 days. In 2005, the

petitioner was granted furlough but he was required to be arrested and

brought back to the prison by which time the delay had extended to a

period of 854 days. Similarly, the petitioner was once again out of

compassion granted furlough in the year 2011 and even then, the

petitioner misused the limited liberty so granted to him and did not

surrender himself before the jail authority. Ultimately, he was required

to be arrested and brought back to the prison after a delay of 1731

days. Such conduct of the petitioner squarely falls within the parameter

of condition No.6 of rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and

Parole) Rules, 1959 and therefore, we see no infirmity in the impugned

order.

4. The writ petition stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

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

Kirtak