Bombay High Court
Sachin Kashinath Ingle vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Deputy ... on 28 July, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:7381-DB
50.cwp.432.25.jud 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.432 OF 2025
Petitioner : Sachin Kashinath Ingle,
Convict No.C/8155, Aged 32 Years,
Occ. Nil, Confined at Central Prison, Nagpur.
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. The Special Inspector General of Police (Prison),
Eastern Region, Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Eastern Region, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mrs. Shweta Wankhede-Chavhan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, A.P.P. for the Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & M.M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 28th JULY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M.M. Nerlikar, J.)
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
02. The present writ petition is being filed by a convict, who is
undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for the offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
03. The petitioner filed this petition challenging the order dated
04/04/2025, whereby the application of the petitioner for furlough leave was
rejected by respondent No.1 as per Chapter II which deals with Furlough, Rule
4(2)(l) and (m) appended to the notification dated 02/12/2024 for the
reason that when the petitioner was released on leave in 2011 and 2016, he
himself surrendered late by 36 days and 6 days respectively. Further, there is
also an adverse police report, as the petitioner has been alleged to have
committed offences punishable under Sections 370, 370A, 354A, 354D and
323 of IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and
Sections 8 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, when he was released on leave in 2020 i.e. during Covid-19 pandemic.
04. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. She has
vehemently submitted that the grounds on which the application for furlough
leave was rejected by respondent No.1 is not tenable in the eyes of law, as the
petitioner has already undergone the sentence of 13 years, 5 months and 18
days till 31/07/2024. She has further submitted that the petitioner was
released on many occasions either by the jail authorities or by the Hon'ble
High Court. She has further submitted that the petitioner was granted
furlough leave on 19/12/2023 and he reported back to jail on the given due
date. She has further submitted that the father of the petitioner has sought
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the information is
supplied to him, wherein it can be gathered that the petitioner was released
on several occasions either on parole or furlough and the conduct of the
petitioner was good in the jail as per the information supplied by the jail
authorities.
05. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that when the
petitioner was released during Covid-19 on parole, he has committed several
offences and not only that, prior to this, in the year 2011 and 2016, he
himself surrendered late and, therefore, respondent No.1 has rightly rejected
the application of the petitioner for furlough leave.
06. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. It
is not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B of IPC. It is also not in
dispute that the petitioner has completed more than 13 years of the
imprisonment. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of furlough
leave and by the impugned order, the application was rejected for the
aforesaid reason. It is pertinent to note that the adverse police report states
that the petitioner has committed offences, when he was released on parole
and still in the year 2023 i.e. after registration of the F.I.R., he was granted
furlough leave by the jail authorities by order dated 19/12/2023. Accordingly,
he was released on 22/12/2023 and he surrendered to the jail authorities on
20/01/2024 i.e. on due date. Not only that, from the information, which was
supplied to the father of the petitioner, the same reveals that the conduct of
the petitioner is good in the prison and, therefore, the reason which is
assigned in the order dated 04/04/2025 cannot be sustained. On one hand,
the petitioner was released in 2023, even though offences were registered in
the year 2022. On the other hand, so far as another ground on which the
application was rejected is that in the year 2008, offence under Section 393
read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. However, in
the said offence, the petitioner was on bail. Respondent No.1 has taken the
aid of Chapter-II dealing with Furlough, Rule 4(2)(l) and (m) for rejecting the
application of the petitioner. Rule 4(2)(l) and (m) reads as under :
4. Categories of eligibility of prisoners for furlough
(2) The following prisoners shall not be eligible for furlough,
namely:
(l) prisoners, whose release is not recommended by an
officer not below the rant of the Assistant
Commissioner of Police or Deputy Superintendent of
Police, on the ground that their release is prejudicial
to public peace, order and tranquility;
(m) Prisoners, who is the opinion of the Superintendent of
Prisons-
(i) exhibit criminal tendencies and can pose a
threat to others,
(ii) did not conduct themselves as per the prescribed
conduct or did not do the assigned work;
07. So far as Chapter II, Rule 4(2)(l) is concerned, it deals with
adverse police report. From the record, it can be gathered that, the adverse
police report demonstrates apprehension of the police authorities that if the
petitioner is released, he would commit another crime. However, this
apprehension cannot be considered as the petitioner was released in the year
2023 and he reported back in time. So far as Rule 4(2)(m) is concerned, it
speaks about the conduct of the prisoner. However, it falsifies the case of
respondent No.1 that his conduct is not good as he is not doing the work
assigned to him, on the basis of the information supplied by the jail
authorities by communication dated 19/10/2024, which is annexed to the
petition as Annexure-3. Clause 12 of the aforesaid communication, whereby
the information was supplied for last 12 months, shows the conduct of the
petitioner as good. Therefore, the grounds on which the application was
rejected cannot be accepted for the aforesaid reasons.
08. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are inclined to allow the application by granting furlough leave of 28 days
to the petitioner on the terms and conditions as the jail authorities may deem
fit. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i. The criminal writ petition is allowed.
ii. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated
04/04/2025 passed by respondent No.1 and direct the said
authority to release the petitioner on furlough leave for 28 days
on the terms and conditions as the said authority may deem fit.
iii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(M.M. Nerlikar, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/07/2025 14:43:16
