Bombay High Court
Pralhad Feku Gupta vs Special Inspector General Of Prison ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-NAG:8235-DB
1 wp793.23.J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.793 OF 2023
Pralhad Feku Gupta
Aged 26 years,
R/o. At. Post.
Sinduria Bazar, Ward no.2,
Tah. & Dist. Maharajganj (U.P.)
(C/11286, Nagpur Central Prison,
Nagpur) ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Special Inspector General of
Prison (East Region), Nagpur.
2] Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Sonali Khobragade, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Nandita Tripathi, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and
2/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 24.07.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 01.08.2024
JUDGMENT:
(PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
The petitioner, who is a convict invokes constitutional
powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
2 wp793.23.J.odt
Constitution of India to challenge order dated 11.09.2023 passed
by respondent no.1 i.e. Special Inspector General of Prison,
Nagpur thereby refusing the furlough leave to the petitioner.
2. Heard Ms. Sonali Khobragade, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Ms. Tripathi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent nos.1 and 2/State.
3. It is vehmently submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 449, 436 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code. He has undergone imprisonment for four
years, five months and twenty five days. He had applied for
releasing him on furlough leave for twenty eight days by
application dated 08.05.2023. The reason he has given in the
furlough leave application is to spend quality time with his family,
and furlough leave is his legal right. However, the leave has been
refused. It appears that the Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj,
District Maharganj in Uttar Pradesh gave negative report and
therefore, the application has been refused. It cannot be
considered as a good ground to reject the furlough leave.
The surety holder is ready to stand as a surety for the petitioner.
The petitioner is originally from Uttar Pradesh and his family stays
3 wp793.23.J.odt
there. He has a right to look after his family and therefore, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. Learned APP is relying upon the affidavit-in-reply by
the respondent no.2 and submits that the petitioner has been
awarded three imprisonment for life, in a single case for offences
punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 436 of IPC. He has been
awarded imprisonment for life separately. Though, it is then stated
that all the sentences should run concurrently, yet the gravity of
the offence is required to be considered. The present petitioner is
unmarried and aged 26. There is every possibility that he would
go absconding, if released on furlough leave. As per the report
submitted by Superintendent, Thana, Sinduria Bazar, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to be released on furlough leave.
The learned APP also relies on provision in Rule 4(4) of the
Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 2018. In view of provisions in
Clause 4-A the petitioner is not entitled to be released on furlough
leave, so also the provision of Rule 17 in Chapter 37 of
Maharashtra Prison Manual disentitle him from furlough leave.
The petitioner was granted leave earlier but he has not availed the
same. The petitioner has not availed the remedy of filing an
appeal before Inspector General of Prisons and has directly came
4 wp793.23.J.odt
before this Court and therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
5. At the outset, it is to be noted that the report on
which the impugned order is based i.e. the report submitted by
Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh appears to
be in respect of the earlier application which was given by the
petitioner when he was supposed to attend marriage of his
relative. We can get the reference of the same in the report
submitted by the Police from Uttar Pradesh that marriage was
supposed to be held in February, 2024 for which he had made
application prior to 13.11.2023 and by letter dated 13.11.2023
the report from Uttar Pradesh police was called which they have
given on 12.12.2023. The earlier order has not been produced on
record. However, it also appears that simultaneously, he had filed
the application for furlough leave around 05.05.2023, impugned
order refers to the report from Uttar Pradesh Police dated
26.07.2023. The said report of 26.07.2023 clearly states that the
mother of the petitioner is ready to take surety ship and she is in a
position to control the petitioner. It is also mentioned that if the
petitioner is granted leave then it will not create any law and
order situation in Uttar Pradesh as the offence was committed in
Maharashtra. Only on the ground that the petitioner is still
5 wp793.23.J.odt
unmarried, aged 26 then possibility of his flee away cannot be
ruled out is the reason on which the application has been rejected.
We do not consider this to be a good ground, even if the police
authority gave adverse report yet the sanctioning authority must
consider the overall situation and whether the possibility that is
expressed can be said to be a true forthcoming possibility. In other
words, the respondent no.1 cannot accept the report of the police
blindly.
6. The purpose of parole or furlough leave is to grant
the victim an environment to connect with his family. The long
incarceration without allowing the inmate to meet his family is
not good for the society as well as to the individual inmate. He has
to manage the responsibility of his family by intermittently visiting
the house. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to rule out the
possibility of chance of fleeing away, and therefore, the impugned
order deserves to be set aside with direction to grant the same by
respondent no.1. Hence, we allow the petition and pass following
order:
ORDER
[i] The impugned order dated 11.09.2023 passed
by respondent no.1 i.e. Special Inspector
6 wp793.23.J.odt
General of Prison, Nagpur is hereby quashed
and set aside.
[ii] Respondent no.1 is directed to consider the
application of the petitioner for furlough leave
afresh and proceed to grant for appropriate
period with appropriate conditions. Such order
to be passed within a period of three weeks
from today.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
NSN
Signed by: Mr. N.S. Nikhare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/08/2024 15:40:04
