Pradeep @ Shetty Shriniwas ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2370 Bom

                                              1                                32-wp-875-21j.odt



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

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 875 OF 2021

Pradeep @ Shetty Shriniwas Regundawar,
Convict No. C/9290,
Aged 28 years, Occ. Nil,
Confined at Central Prison,
Nagpur.                                                                    . . . APPELLANT

                       ...V E R S U S..

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt. Sweta D. Wankhede, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M. K. Pathan, APP for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                          AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 09.03.2022

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

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

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

Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2 32-wp-875-21j.odt

16.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1, thereby refusing furlough

leave to the petitioner for a period of 28 days.

4. The petitioner is a convict for the offence under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing imprisonment for life

in Central Prison, Nagpur and has completed 6 years of imprisonment.

The petitioner on 22.07.2021 applied with the respondent no. 2 for

release on furlough leave for a period of 28 days. The said application

has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that on earlier

occasion, when the petitioner was released on furlough leave, the

petitioner was required to be arrested and brought back to prison after

a period of 190 days. The petitioner has therefore challenged the

impugned order dated 16.11.2021 by filing the present petition.

5. This Court on 12.01.2022 issued notice to the respondents

and in pursuance of which the respondent no. 2 has filed reply stating

that the petitioner, on earlier occasion, was released on 02.07.2020 but

did not surrender on due date and therefore was required to be

arrested and brought back to prison after a period of 190 days i.e. on

06.02.2021.

6. This Court in various judgments has taken consistent view

that if the prisoner had not surrendered himself in time and was 3 32-wp-875-21j.odt

required to be arrested and brought to prison then he is not entitled

for being released on furlough leave. We are therefore satisfied that

there is no illegality in rejecting the application of furlough leave of the

petitioner.

7. The petition is therefore dismissed. Rule discharged.

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

RR Jaiswal

Digitally signed by JAISWAL JAISWAL RAJNESH RAJNESH RAMESH Date:

RAMESH    2022.03.11
          18:48:53 +0530