Chudaman Ghambirdas Shahu vs Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13173 Bom

                                       1                                      CRIWP140.21.odt


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


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 140 OF 2021


 PETITIONER                    : Chudaman Ghambirdas Shahu,
                                 Aged about 37 years,
                                 R/o Manshi Layout, Plot No.30,
                                 Bharatwada, Behind H.P. Gas Godown,
                                 Police Station, Kalamna, Nagpur
                                 (C-6538, Central Prison, Nagpur)

                                              VERSUS

 RESPONDENTS                   : 1. Deputy Inspector General Prison,
                                    (East Region), Nagpur.

                                 2. The Superintendent of Jail,
                                    Central Prison, Nagpur.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Ms. Sonali Khobragade, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mrs. N. R. Tripathy, A. P. P. for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per V. M. Deshpande, J.]

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Ms. Sonali Khobragade, learned counsel for the

2 CRIWP140.21.odt

petitioner and Mrs. N. R. Tripathy, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the

order dated 03.12.2020, passed by respondent no.1 - Deputy

Inspector General of Prison (East Region) Nagpur, thereby rejecting

the application made by the petitioner to release him on furlough

leave.

4. Notices were issued in this writ petition. In pursuance to

the notice, respondent no.2 - Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison,

Nagpur has filed detailed reply.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

case of the petitioner is covered by the decisions of the coordinate

bench of this Court in Satish Shankarrao Shinde .vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in 2019 All M.R.(Cri) 5247 ; and

Santosh Sahebrao Nagargoje .vs. State of Maharashtra and others,

reported in 2020 All M.R.(Cri) 3101. The learned counsel, therefore,

prays for allowing the petition.

3 CRIWP140.21.odt

6. By filing reply it is pointed out by respondent no.2

authority that on 28.08.2008, the petitioner was released on

furlough leave, however he did not return to the prison on due date.

He remained absconded and overstayed for 2023 days. Not only

that, he was required to be brought to the prison by the police

authorities.

7. The decisions on which reliance has been placed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, in our view, cannot be the

precedent to decide this writ petition inasmuch as in Satish

Shankarrao Shinde and Santosh Sahebrao Nagargoje (supra), the

coordinate bench of this Court has only remanded the matter back to

the authorities. In Satish Shankarrao Shinde's case (supra), the

coordinate bench has observed in paragraph 11 as under :

"11. The learned A.P.P. placed reliance on the observations made by the Bombay High Court in the case reported as Murlidhar Ramchandra Bhalerao Versus State of Maharashtra, (2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2132). The learned A.P.P. submitted that in this case, this Court has observed that if there is breach of the prison Rules, like the prisoner had not reported back to the prison after expiry of the furlough he does not deserve any sympathy. Those observations are general observations. In this reported case this Court did not interpret the aforesaid Rules. In the present

4 CRIWP140.21.odt

matter, this Court is accepting the interpretation already made and using the said interpretation. It is always desirable that such cases are separately considered on the facts and circumstances of those cases."

8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the

point is not decided by this Court that even though a convict has

overstayed and was required to be brought in prison by police

authorities, still he has right to claim furlough as a matter of right.

9. We see no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is

accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.

                          JUDGE                        JUDGE

 Diwale