Tulshiram S/O Sahebrao Maske vs State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15439 Bom

  J-cwp630.21.odt                                                                       1/3


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

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.630 OF 2021


  Tulshiram s/o. Sahebrao Maske,
  C-5423, Aged about 50 years,
  Occupation : Nil,
  (Presently in Central Prison Amravati)              :     PETITIONER

                 ...VERSUS...

  1.    State of Maharashtra,
        Through Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
        Eastern Region, Nagpur.

  2.    Superintendent of Jail,
        Central Prison, Amravati,
        Distt. Amravati.                              :      RESPONDENTS


  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate for Petitioner.
  Ms. N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


                                      Coram :     M.S. Sonak And
                                                  Smt. Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.

Date : 27th October, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : M.S. Sonak, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Shri S.D.

Chande, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. N.R. Tripathi, Additional

Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Heard finally with consent of

J-cwp630.21.odt 2/3

parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.6.2021

by which the petitioner's application for furlough of 28 days came to be

rejected. The rejection is on the sole ground that the petitioner,

breached the terms and conditions subject to which he was released on

parole to attend the last rites of his deceased mother. Record indicates

that there was delay of 12 days and for this, proceedings have already

been initiated under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code against the

petitioner.

3. Shri S.D. Chande, learned counsel has explained the delay of

12 days of unintentional and mainly it can be attributed due to

pandemic. He states that the parole was granted to the petitioner on

28th February, 2020. He was required to return within 21 days.

However, on account of pandemic this was not possible.

4. We have perused the record and according to us, the

explanation offered is quite reasonable and ought to have been

accepted. Even the delay of 12 days was not of such magnitude as to

reject the petitioner's application for furlough. Except for such delay,

there are no other allegations of breaches against the petitioner.

5. Therefore, on consideration of the aforesaid aspect, we quash

and set aside the impugned order dated 22.6.2021 and direct the

J-cwp630.21.odt 3/3

concerned respondents to grant furlough leave to the petitioner for a

period of 28 days on usual terms and conditions.

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be

no order for costs.

(Smt. Pushpa V. Ganediwala,J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)

okMksns