Prem Sudam Rathod vs Deputy Inspector General ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1348 Bom

                               1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.38 OF 2020


   Prem Sudam Rathod,
   Convict No.C/5543.
   Presently at Central Prison,
   Amravati, District Amravati.               ........         PETITIONER


          // VERSUS //


   1.Deputy Inspector General
     (Prisons)(East), Nagpur.

   2.The Superintendent,
     Central Prison, Amravati,
     District Amravati.                 ......... RESPONDENTS

  ____________________________________________________________
  None for the petitioner.
  Mr.S.M.Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.


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

DATE : 20.1.2021.

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

1. Nobody is present for the petitioner, but, as the

pleadings are complete and Mr.S.M.Ghodeswar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor is there to assist this Court, the

petition has been taken up for final hearing.

2. Rule. Mr.S.M.Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor waives service for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

3. The only ground taken for rejection of the

application filed by the petitioner for his release on furlough is

some apprehension expressed by the concerned Police

Station that, if released on furlough, the petitioner might

decide to visit Pandhurna, a town situated near village

Mungshi, Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal where the petitioner

would ordinarily reside while on furlough and assault his

mother-in-law Shalubai Jadhav. There is, however, no

material placed before us for substantiating such an

apprehension. Reply is also silent in this regard. Unless such

apprehension is based on reasonable suspicion, it could not

constitute a ground for rejection of application seeking

furlough leave, furlough leave being a matter of right.

Therefore, we find that the impugned order based on this

solitary ground is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set

aside. There is otherwise no dispute about entitlement of the

petitioner regarding grant of furlough leave.

4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned

order is quashed and set aside.

5. The petitioner is directed to be released on furlough

leave as per his entitlement on such conditions as may be

found suitable in the matter, in accordance with the Rules,

within a period of four weeks from the date of order.

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

6. As the learned Counsel (appointed) for the

petitioner has committed default in appearance, no

remuneration be paid to him and this fact may be duly taken

note of by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,

Nagpur.

                                 JUDGE                       JUDGE


  [jaiswal]