Manojsingh Punjabsingh Bhada vs Deputy Inspector General Prison ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3037 Bom

Judgment                                                                      wp193.23

                                         1


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



                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 193/2023.


Manojsingh Punjabsingh Bhada (C-5560)
Aged about 30 years, Occupation - NA
resident of Tahsil Warud,
District Amravati.                                    ...         PETITIONER.

                                       VERSUS


1.Deputy Inspector General Prison,
[East Region], Nagpur.

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


                           ---------------------------------
                  Ms. R. Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                  Ms. N. Tripathi, A.P.P. for Respondents.
                           ----------------------------------


                                CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
                                          BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 28, 2023.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing

Rgd.

Judgment wp193.23

for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks modification in the

conditions imposed while availing furlough leave, stating it to be

onerous, unreasonable and excessive.

3. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing

sentence. The petitioner has undergone imprisonment for 8 years.

He has applied for release on furlough leave of 28 days, which was

considered on merits and came to be allowed by an order dated

29.12.2022. The respondent no.1 Deputy Inspector General of

Prison while granting furlough leave, called upon the petitioner to

furnish two sureties to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs each, along with

personal bond of Rs.5 lakhs, as well as to pay cash security of Rs.5

lakhs.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

surety amount is too excessive, unreasonable and it is impossible for

Rgd.

 Judgment                                                                wp193.23



the petitioner to meet the said requirement.             According to the

petitioner due to financial constraints, he is not in a position to

deposit huge cash security. Moreover, it is submitted that the

amount of surety is also excessive, therefore, it would be difficult for

the petitioner to meet the conditions.

5. The submissions made by the petitioner appears to be

acceptable. The order does not reflect the reasons or propriety for

demanding large sum as cash security. The amount of surety should

always be reasonable depending upon the financial capacity of the

prisoner. Imposition of huge cash security ultimately amounts to

denial of right. Though the State has stated about the gravity of the

offence, however, already the authority has taken a decision to grant

furlough leave. In the facts of the present case, we find that the

petitioner has made out a case for modification of the impugned

conditions.

6. We may note that, day in and day out we are coming

across series of such orders wherein the authority is directing to

Rgd.

Judgment wp193.23

deposit huge cash security while releasing a convict on parole or

furlough leave. The said orders are nothing but, total non-

application of mind. We call upon the learned A.P.P. to bring this

order to the notice of respondent no.1 for acting in tune with the

above observations.

7. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. The

impugned conditions are modified to the extent of reducing the

surety amount to Rs.50,000/- from Rs. 2 lakhs, likewise the personal

bond amount and cash security is also reduced to the extent of

Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs. 5 lakhs..

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

                    JUDGE                      JUDGE




Rgd.