Julfising @ Surajsingh @ Bumbai @ ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15370 Bom

  63WP 709-2021.odt                             1



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

                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 709 OF 2021

  Julfising @ Surajsing @ Bambai @ Attarsingh Navnihal @
  Daulatsingh Bawari, Prisoner no. C - 8965.
  (Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur).
                                             ...PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. State of Maharashtra,
     through the Dy. Inspector General of Prisons (ER),
     Nagpur.

  2. The Superintendent,
     Central Prison, Nagpur.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS

  Ms. Shweta Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner.
  Ms. N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents.
                           .....

                               CORAM : M.S. SONAK AND
                                        PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : M.S. SONAK, J.)

Heard Ms. Shweta Wankhede, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Ms. N.R. Tripathi, learned A.P.P. for the

respondents/ State.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the

request and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated

08/09/2021 rejecting the petitioner's application for Furlough.

4. Ms. Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner

has pointed out that the co-accused, who was also convicted

along with the petitioner was granted Furlough without raising

the objections that have been raised in the case of the

petitioner.

5. Accordingly, we had adjourned the matter to enable

the learned A.P.P. to obtain instructions on this issue. The

learned A.P.P. has confirmed that the co-accused was indeed

released on Furlough. Besides, Ms. Wankhede has also placed

on record the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in Special

Criminal Case No. 4/2013 from which it is quite clear that the

petitioner and the other convict who was released on Furlough

were indeed the co-accused in the said matter.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we

are satisfied that the impugned order declining Furlough to the

petitioner is required to be set-aside.

7. We set-aside the impugned order and direct the

concerned respondents to release the petitioner on Furlough

for 28 days on the usual terms and conditions. The order to

this effect to be passed within a week from today.

8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There

shall be no order for costs.

(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M.S. SONAK, J.)

Sumit