Sanjay S/O Tulshiram Bawankar vs The Superintendent Central ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2884 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                         Cri.W.P.15.2021.odt


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

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 15 OF 2021

          Sanjay S/o Tulshiram Bawankar,
          Aged adult, R/o. At Kawtha Kadu,
          Tah - Chandur Railway,
          Dist. Amravati.
          (Presently at Central Prison,
          Amravati, C-4756)
                                                              .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       The Superintendent,
          Central Prison, Amravati.

 2)       The Deputy Inspector General,
          of Prisons (Eastern Region), Nagpur.
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri D. S. Lambat, counsel (appointed) for the petitioner.
      Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents.
 ______________________________________________________________

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

DATED : 12.02.2021.

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

was granted parole but he did not surrender on the due date and hence

Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.15.2021.odt

he was required to be arrested and brought back to the prison, due to

which Crime No. 6 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section

224 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner. The

petitioner has been denied furlough leave only because his conduct as

a prisoner has not been found to be satisfactory. Such opinion of the

Prison Authority in view of the conduct of the petitioner revealed by his

late surrender while releasing him on parole cannot be said to be

satisfactory and therefore, we see no infirmity in the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner needs to be given one more chance. However, as of now

there is no material available on record which shows that the petitioner

has expected signs of improvement. Therefore, for the present at least

for this year, we are not inclined to issue any direction for grant of

furlough leave to the petitioner. This petition stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

Legal remuneration of Rs.2,500/- (Rs. Two Thousand Five

Hundred only) be paid to the counsel appointed for the petitioner.

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

Kirtak