Bombay High Court
Arun S/O. Gulab Gawli (In Jail) vs Deputy Inspector General ... on 23 April, 2019
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq, Vinay Joshi
Judgment 1 wp118.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 118/2019
1] Arun S/o Gulab Gawli,
C-8535,
Presently Central Prison,
Nagpur. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1] Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East)
Nagpur.
2] The Superintendent Central Prison,
Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________________
Shri R.M. Daga, with Mir Nagman Ali, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for Respondents.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 23rd APRIL 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- Z.A. HAQ, J. )
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No. 1 - the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagpur rejecting his request for grant of furlough leave for 28 days. Initially the prayer of the petitioner was opposed on the ground that the concerned authority has given adverse report, and the adverse report is supported by antecedents of the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2019 23:10:05 :::
Judgment 2 wp118.2019.odt 4. The order passed by the respondent No.1 - Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons, states that when the petitioner was earlier released on furlough leave from 17th April, 2018 to 25th April, 2018, Crime No. 165/2018, was registered against the petitioner's wife on 22nd April 2018, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 506, 385 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. When the matter was heard on 8th April 2019, learned A.P.P. had relied on Rule 4 (19) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959, and had argued that as the general elections at Mumbai are scheduled on 29th April 2019, report of the concerned authority in the matter would be necessary. Accordingly, time was granted to the respondents for said purpose.
6. Today additional reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. It is stated that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave, he may cause breach of Model Code of Conduct.
To counter the above submission made on behalf of the respondents, the learned advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, has made a statement before this Court, that the petitioner will not insist for his release till 30th April 2019.
7. In the impugned order, it is recorded that when the petitioner was released on furlough leave on earlier 6 occasions, every ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2019 23:10:05 ::: Judgment 3 wp118.2019.odt time he reported back on due date. It is not the case of the respondents that on earlier occasions, the petitioner has misused the liberty or has committed any offence when released on furlough.
8. In the facts of the case, and the assurance given on behalf of the petitioner, that he will not insist for release till 30 th April 2019, following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) It is held that the petitioner is eligible for furlough leave for 28 days. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave for 28 days on the terms and conditions as shall be imposed by the concerned authority.
(iii) This order will become effective from 30th April, 2019.
(iv) Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gabhane
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2019 23:10:05 :::