Bombay High Court
Mohd. Akram Hanif Shaikh (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 25 April, 2019
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Z. A. Haq, Vinay Joshi
1 2jgcrwp188.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 188/2019
PETITIONER:- Mohd. Akram Hanif Shaikh,
(In Jail) Aged about 39 years,
R/o. Mubra Amrut Nagar, Sabera
Apartment, 102, B-Vingh, Near Mubra
English High School, Thane, Dist. Thane,
(Prisoner No. C/5223 in Central Prison,
Amravati.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Inspector General of
Prison, Easter Region, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri T. A. Mirza, APP for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: Z. A. HAQ AND
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 25.04.2019
JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner had applied for furlough leave of 21 days. The petitioner's application is rejected by the respondent No. 1 - Deputy ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 20:59:15 ::: 2 2jgcrwp188.19.odt Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur vide order dated 20.10.2018. The said rejection is impugned herein.
3. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 452, read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code . Till the date of filing of application for grant of furlough leave, he had undergone sentence of imprisonment of 04 years, 02 months and 29 days. The petitioner's application is rejected on the premises of Adverse Police report and surety does not possess immovable property. The State resisted the petition but is unable to give any potential reason to reject the claim of the petitioner.
4. Admittedly, this is the first occasion when the petitioner is claiming furlough leave and therefore, there is no question of antecedents of late surrender/ return-back on due date. Without any material to substantiate, the apprehension cannot be the ground to deny furlough leave to the petitioner.
Another reason given by the Authority for rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave is that the surety proposed by the petitioner does not posses immovable property. This reason is justified. However, instead of denying the furlough leave to the petitioner on this ground, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to propose some other surety holding immovable property in ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 20:59:15 ::: 3 2jgcrwp188.19.odt the State of Maharashtra and on verification if the Authority is satisfied, the petitioner can be released on furlough leave for 21 days.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed in the following terms:
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) If the petitioner proposes some other surety holding
immovable property in the State of Maharashtra, and on verification the concerned Authority is satisfied that the surety, which would be proposed by the petitioner, is as per the norms, the petitioner be released on furlough leave for a period of 21 days on such terms and conditions as shall be deemed fit and proper by the Authority.
iii) If the petitioner commits any act of misconduct or fails to return on due date, the same shall affect his entitlement for release on furlough leave on the subsequent occasion/ occasions.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gohane
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 20:59:15 :::