Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Kiran Antrix Uke (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Director ... on 16 August, 2017

Author: M. G. Giratkar

Bench: Vasanti A. Naik, M. G. Giratkar

                                                 1                                              cri.w.p.433.17.odt


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

                             Criminal Writ Petition No. 433 of 2017
[Kiran Antariksha Uke (in jail)  Vs.  State of Maharashtra through Director General of Prison and
                                  Rehabilitation, Pune and ors.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                                           Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
                                               Mrs. P. S. Zoting, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed)
                                               Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents
                                                 
                                     CORAM :   VASANTI  A  NAIK and
                                               M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 16/08/2017.

By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the respondent no. 2 - Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur dated 11-5-2016 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. On earlier occasion, when the petitioner was released on furlough leave, she had surrendered belatedly after 24 days and 146 days from the expiry of the furlough leave. When the petitioner was released on furlough leave on 8-10-2013, the petitioner had absconded and was required to be brought to the prison through the police authorities 798 days after the expiry of the leave period. It appears that another trial is pending against the petitioner. The police vigilance report is also not favourable to the petitioner as the petitioner has absconded for nearly two years when she was released on furlough leave. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the order of the Deputy Inspector General of ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:20:51 ::: 2 cri.w.p.433.17.odt Prison, Nagpur, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave under Rules 4(4) and 4(10).

In the result, the criminal writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The professional fees of the learned counsel for the petitioner are quantified at Rs. 1500/- and the same should be paid to the learned counsel at the earliest. Order accordingly.

                                     JUDGE                                             JUDGE

wasnik




         ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017                                 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:20:51 :::