Bombay High Court
Shubham S/O Suresh Tekam vs Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 3 September, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cr.W.P.No.576.2021-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.576 OF 2021
Subham S/o. Suresh Tekam,
Aged about 25 years,
R/o. Parva, Post Talegaon (Bhari),
Tah. & Distt. Yavatmal.
(C/5777, Central Prison, Amravati). ....PETITIONER
---- VERSUS ----
1. Deputy Inspector General of
Prison (East Region), Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ms. P. M. Mane, Advocate h/f. Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms N. R. Tripathi, A.P. P. for the Respondents/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 03.09.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated
16.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 thereby refusing
furlough leave of the petitioner for a period of 21 days.
4. The petitioner is a convict for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 149 read with Section 34 and 120-B and
Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and is
undergoing sentence for life imprisonment. The petitioner has
undergone imprisonment for 3 years and 6 days.
5. The petitioner on 21.04.2021 applied for his release on
furlough leave of 21 days. The respondent No.1 by order dated
16.06.2021 rejected the application for furlough leave on the
ground that the police report is adverse to the petitioner and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for release.
6. The petitioner has therefore filed present petition
challenging the order dated 16.06.2021 by way of the present
petition. This Court on 11.08.2021 issued notice to the respondents.
The respondent No.2 has filed reply dated 21.08.2021. It is stated
in the reply that since the police verification report is adverse to the
petitioner, the respondent No.1 has rightly rejected the furlough
application of the petitioner.
7. On scrutiny of the impugned order, which is based on
the adverse police report, we find that the respondent No.1 has not
referred any material on the basis of which, apprehension is
expressed in the order can be justified. On careful consideration of
the police report and the impugned order, we do not find basic
material, which would entitle the respondent No.1 to reject the
application. Merely because the police report is adverse, the said
act by itself, is not sufficient to reject furlough leave application of a
prisoner unless there is material placed on record to justify the
apprehension. In absence of such material the respondent No.1 was
not justified in rejecting the furlough leave application of the
petitioner.
8. We, therefore, pass following order :
9. The impugned order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the
respondent No.1 rejecting the furlough leave application of the
petitioner is quashed and set aside.
10. The respondent No.1 is directed to release the
petitioner on furlough leave for a period of 21 days on such terms
and conditions which may be permissible in law as per Rules of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
