Sachin Bharat Borule vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3739 Bom

                                              1                                30-wp-610-21j.odt



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

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 610 OF 2021

Sachin Bharat Borule,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o. Bhagumri, Both Both,
Tah. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal.
(C/5631, Central Prison, Amravati)                                        . . . PETITIONER

                       ...V E R S U S..

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. P. M. Mane, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, APP for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                          AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 06.04.2022

JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated 2 30-wp-610-21j.odt

17.06.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 refusing furlough leave of

the petitioner for a period of 21 days.

4. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing

imprisonment for life. On the date of filing of the petition, the

petitioner had undergone imprisonment for 4 years, 3 months and 17

days.

5. The petitioner on 09.01.2020 filed application for release

on furlough leave for 21 days. The respondent no. 1 called for report

from the Commissioner of Police, Yavatmal, who submitted the report

on 24.06.2020, which is adverse to the petitioner. The respondent no.

1 relying on the said report has rejected the furlough leave application

of the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore challenged rejection of

furlough leave by filing the present petition.

6. This Court on 14.10.2021 issued notice to the

respondents. The respondent no 2 has filed reply stating that since the

report of the Police is adverse, furlough leave application of the

petitioner is rightly rejected.

3 30-wp-610-21j.odt

7. We have carefully scrutinized the impugned order and

police report annexed alongwith reply. On perusal, Rule 4(4) and 4(6)

of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole)

(Amendment) Rules, 2018, we are of the view that eligibility of the

petitioner cannot be mechanically considered just because police

report is adverse. If the police report does not disclose any material

justifying refusal of sanction of furlough leave, the rejection would be

improper. On scrutiny of reply alongwith the impugned order and

police report, we do not find any material based on which the

apprehension expressed in the report is justified. Neither the

impugned order nor the police report refers to basic fact that there

exists some material which upon perusal would show apprehension so

expressed by the Authorities has reasonable foundation.

8. We, therefore, pass the following order:-

i)             The Writ Petition is allowed.

ii)            The impugned order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the

respondent no. 1 rejecting furlough leave of the petitioner is quashed

and set aside.

iii) The respondent no. 1 is directed to grant furlough leave of

21 days to the petitioner upon such conditions, as may be permissible 4 30-wp-610-21j.odt

in terms of Rules, within a period of one week from the date of receipt

of this order.

iv) Rule is made absolute in the above term.

(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (V. M. DESHPANDE, J.)

RR Jaiswal

Digitally signed JAISWAL by JAISWAL RAJNESH RAJNESH RAMESH RAMESH Date: 2022.04.08 18:38:20 +0530