Bombay High Court
Ravi Baliram Uikey vs State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy ... on 23 November, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
35WP 666-2021.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 666 OF 2021
Shri Ravi Baliram Uikey, C-8169,
aged about 38 years, Occ. Nil.
(Presently in Central Prison, Nagpur).
...PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Eastern Region, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : M.S. SONAK AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the
order dated 03/12/2020 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy
Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur, whereby
respondent No.1 has rejected the application of the petitioner
for grant of furlough leave of 28 days.
3. The petitioner is a convict and undergoing sentence
of life imprisonment in Central Prison, Nagpur for the offence
punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of around seven years.
4. The application for furlough leave of the petitioner
came to be rejected on the solitary ground that in the year
2011, when he was released on furlough leave, he out-stayed
for 1265 days and he was required to be arrested and brought
back to prison.
5. The affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the State also
does not indicate any other ground except the above one.
6. Mr. Raju Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that since then he has never applied for grant of
furlough or parole leave. The petitioner has already booked for
the offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal
Code for his late surrender by 1265 days in the year 2011. In
support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the
judgments of this Court in the case of i) Ajaj Khan Vs. Deputy
Inspector General (Prison) (East), Nagpur & Anr. [Criminal
Writ Petition No. 393/2017 d/on 21/07/2017); ii) Firdos Khan
Jabaz Khan Vs. Deputy Inspector General (Prison) (East),
Nagpur & Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 394/2017 d/on
21/07/2017); iii) Hasan Khan Jabaz Khan Vs. Deputy Inspector
General (Prison) (East), Nagpur & Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition
No. 967/2017 d/on 22/11/2017); and iv) Anil Laxman Javade
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 913/2019 d/
on 30/06/2020).
The learned counsel submits that in all the
aforecited cases, this Court passed orders in favour of the
petitioners therein, in somewhat similar circumstances.
7. Per contra, Mrs. Tripathi, learned A.P.P., opposed the
petition through the reply affidavit filed on record.
8. We have considered the rival submissions put forth
on behalf of both the sides and perused the record.
9. At the outset, the eligibility of the petitioner for
grant of furlough leave is not disputed except that he has
defaulted in surrendering himself at the appropriate time after
his release on furlough in the year 2011. The learned A.P.P.
does not dispute that since 2015, the petitioner has not been
released either on furlough or parole leave.
10. In the aforecited judgments delivered by this Court,
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in
more or less similar circumstances directed release of the
petitioners on furlough leave even after they failed to surrender
at the appropriate time.
11. In the case in hand, we are satisfied that since
2015, the petitioner has not been released on furlough or
parole leave. The objectives for grant of furlough or parole leave to
the inmates, i.e., the progressive measures of correctional
services are a) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with
his family life and deal with family matters; b) to save him
from evil effects of continuous prison life; c) to enable him to
maintain and develop his self- confidence; d) to enable him to
develop constructive hope and active interest in life.
12. Having regard to the avowed objectives for grant of
parole and furlough leave, which came to be inserted vide
notification No. MIS-1316/C.R.669/16/PRS-3 dated
16/04/2019 and considering the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid judgments, in our considered view, one opportunity
needs to be granted to the petitioner to show his bonafide.
13. In this view of the matter, we quash and set-aside
the impugned order dated 03/12/2020 passed by respondent
No.1 - Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region,
Nagpur. Respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner
on furlough leave for 28 days on his executing P.R. bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount and
with cash surety of Rs.25,000/- with further additional
conditions to the satisfaction of respondent No.2 to secure the
presence of the petitioner after the leave period is over.
14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Writ
Petition is disposed of.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M.S. SONAK, J.)
******
Sumit
