Bombay High Court
Naresh Ramchandra Sonekar (In Jail) vs Prison Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 2 August, 2017
Bench: P. B. Varale, M. G. Giratkar
1 jg.cri.wp105&226.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 105 of 2017
Shri Naresh S/o Ramchandra Sonekar,
(In Jail). Convict No. C-7650
Central Prison, Nagpur. .... Petitioner
// Versus //
(1) State of Maharashtra through
Deputy Inspector General,
Prison, Nagpur.
(2) Superintendent of Prison,
Central Jail Nagpur. .... Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. P. Meshram, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with
Criminal Writ Petition No. 226 of 2017
Shri Naresh Ramchandra Sonekar,
Aged about 37, Occupation - Not known,
Now detained in Central Prison, Nagpur
as Convict No. C-7650. .... Petitioner
// Versus //
(1) Prison Deputy Inspector General of
Prison, East Division, Nagpur.
(2) Superintendent of Jail, Nagpur
Central Prison, Nagpur. .... Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri C. D. Wasade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:38:06 :::
2 jg.cri.wp105&226.17.odt
CORAM : P. B. VARALE and
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 02/08/2017.
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.) Petitioner Naresh Sonekar filed both the petitions for the same cause of action. Writ Petition No. 105/2017 was filed by the petitioner through private counsel Shri N. P. Meshram. Another petition viz. Writ Petition No. 226/2017 was filed by appointed counsel Shri C. D. Wasade as per the directions given by High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.
2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 1-1-2017 passed by the respondent no. 1 by which furlough leave application of the petitioner came to be rejected.
3. Heard Shri Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondents.
4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:38:06 ::: 3 jg.cri.wp105&226.17.odt the Indian Penal Code. He has completed 7 years 3 months and 5 days imprisonment in the prison. The petitioner is suffering from serious piles disease. He was admitted in Medical Hospital, Nagpur. His piles operation was performed. He was advised by doctor to use hot water and have a rest. Due to non-availability of hot water facility in jail, said disease was again increased whereby the pus is started to come out from the operated place. The petitioner was unable to stand, seat and sleep properly. Therefore, the petitioner approached the respondent no. 2 for seeking medical parole leave for getting rest. Respondents refused to accept the parole application.
6. The petitioner made representation to the High Court and prayed for release. By considering the serious disease and need of rest, he again approached the respondent no. 2 for grant of furlough leave vide application dated 15-11-2016. Respondent no. 1 passed arbitrary order dated 1-1-2017 by which he rejected furlough application of the petitioner.
7. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 without applying his mind illegally rejected furlough leave application. It is submitted that the petitioner was already prosecuted under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code for late surrendering to jail. On the last occasion, ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:38:06 ::: 4 jg.cri.wp105&226.17.odt he was granted parole leave on 19-3-2016 and the petitioner surrendered on due date. Therefore, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order.
8. The petitions are strongly opposed by the respondents. It is submitted that after perusal of the police verification report, it is clear that proposed surety is not competent to exercise control over the prisoner during his leave. Whenever he was released on furlough or parole leave, he did not surrender on due date. At last, it is submitted that the petitions are devoid of substance and merits and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel Shri Meshram for the petitioner has submitted that lastly, petitioner was released on parole on 19-3-2016. The petitioner himself surrendered on due date i.e. on 18-6-2016. Learned counsel placed on record letter issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur dated 20-6-2016. Same is taken on record and marked as Annexure-'X' for identification. Learned counsel relied on the order of this Court dated 26-4-2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 189/2017 and submitted that in view of order of this Court, writ petition be allowed.
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:38:06 :::
5 jg.cri.wp105&226.17.odt
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Tripathi has submitted that the petitioner was arrested and brought to the prison on three occasions. He did not surrender on due date and, therefore, his application is rightly rejected.
11. As per the chart given in the reply filed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner was released on furlough leave on 24-3-2011. He did not surrender on due date, he was arrested by police and brought back to the prison after 139 days. He was released on parole leave on 23-1-2009. He did not surrender on due date. He was arrested by police and brought back to the prison after 95 days. He was released on parole leave on 1-3-2012. He did not surrender on due date. He was arrested by police and brought back to the prison. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is already punished by registering the offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. As per the letter, Annexure-X, on the last occasion, he was released on 19-3-2016 and he surrendered on due date i.e. on 18-6-2016. In the above cited order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 189/2017 (Nandu @ Devanand Budhbaware Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Central Prison, Nagpur and anr.), Division Bench of ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:38:06 ::: 6 jg.cri.wp105&226.17.odt this Court observed as under :
2] Perused chart showing history of release either on furlough leave or parole leave and surrender thereafter. On one occasion i.e. on 25-06-2011 the petitioner was required to be arrested and brought back after 89 days'. He was being given parole leave on 20-07-2012 and he has surrendered himself on 18-01-2013 late by 101 days'. The Authorities, thereafter, on 06-01-2016 granted him parole leave and he has reported back on due date i.e. on 06-04-2016. 3] In view of the last release and surrender on due date, it is apparent that, the previous history loses its significance. 4] Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09-12-2016. The petitioner is directed to be released for enjoying the furlough leave after obtaining the necessary bond and undertaking from him and from his surety within three weeks'.
13. In the above cited decision, convict was arrested and brought back after 89 days. Thereafter he was released on parole leave. He himself surrendered late by 101 days. Thereafter parole leave was granted and a convict was reported on due date. In the present case, on the last occasion, the petitioner was released on 19-3-2016 and he himself surrendered on due date. Therefore, in view of the order of Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 189/2017, the petitioner is entitled for furlough leave.
Respondent no. 1 not considered the grounds in the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that he wanted leave for medical treatment and as per advise of doctor, he can get hot water and rest at ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:38:06 ::: 7 jg.cri.wp105&226.17.odt his house. Therefore, we allow Writ Petition No. 105/2017 in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave on usual conditions.
14. The petitioner filed two petitions for the same relief. As per the order of this Court dated 26-4-2017, the petitioner was directed to deposit amount of Rs. 1500/- with the Registry of this Court. The petitioner deposited the said amount. Registry is directed to pay amount of Rs. 1500/- deposited by the petitioner as a quantified fee to Shri C. D. Wasade, learned counsel appointed for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 226/2017.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:38:06 :::