Jaiprakash Hariharprasad Mishra ... vs Deputy Inspector General ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8982 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                                 wp287.20.odt




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


                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 287/2020


          Jaiprakash Hariharprasad Mishra,
          Convict No. C/5149,
          Presently At Central Prison, Amravati
          District Amravati
                                                                    .... PETITIONER

                                    // VERSUS //

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

 2]       The Superintendent Central Prison,
          Amravati, District Amravati
                                                               .... RESPONDENT(S)

  *******************************************************************
           Shri D.R. Upadhyay, Advocate (appt.) for the petitioner
                Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for the respondents
  *******************************************************************

                           CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

JULY 09, 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

1] Heard.

 2]               RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.



 3]               By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has challenged the order 20/09/2019 passed by the

respondent no. 1 rejecting the furlough leave application of the petitioner.

  Judgment                                  2                                wp287.20.odt




 4]               The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing imprisonment

for life at Central Prison, Amravati District. The petitioner on 29/08/2018

filed an application for his release on furlough leave as per the provisions of

the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The

said application has been rejected by the impugned order. The petitioner has

therefore challenged the impugned order by way of the present writ petition.

5] This Court on 25/11/2020 issued notices to the respondents for

final disposal. The respondent no. 2 in pursuance of the notice issued by this

Court has filed reply pointing out that since the surety proposed by the

petitioner is doing job and is in employment, he will be unable to keep watch

on the petitioner.

6] We have carefully considered the impugned order. The only

reason mentioned in the impugned order is that the proposed surety remains

outside his home throughout the day due to his employment and therefore

the surety is not in a position to control the activities of the petitioner. The

police report also states that the relatives of the deceased and the witnesses

have not stated anything against the petitioner. Having gone through the

reason mentioned in the impugned order, we do not find that the reason

mentioned in the impugned order to the effect that the surety would not be

unable to control the activities of the petitioner, is based on any material.

Judgment 3 wp287.20.odt

Unless there is material on record in support of the apprehension expressed

by the Authorities, the Jail Authorities are not justified in rejecting the

furlough leave of the petitioner.

 7]               Hence, the following order:-



                  (a)          The impugned order dated 20/09/2019 passed by

the respondent no. 1 is quashed and set aside.

(b) The respondent no. 1 is directed to release the

petitioner on furlough leave for 28 days on such terms and

conditions as he deems fit and proper.

(c) Fees of the advocate appointed to represent the

petitioner is quantified at Rs. One Thousand Five Hundred

which shall be paid to him.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                   (JUDGE)                                  (JUDGE)




 ANSARI