Bombay High Court
Kisansingh Shersingh Babari vs Deputy Inspector General Of Prison ... on 9 April, 2021
Author: Amit B. Borkar
Bench: Z. A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 17-wp-300-21j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2021
Kisansingh Shersingh Babari,
Aged about 45 years,
(In Jail) Convict No. C-2515,
Central Prison, Amravati. . . . PETITIONER
...V E R S U S..
1. Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Prison,
Amravati. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. J. Dhoble, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N. R. Tripathi, A.P. P. for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 09.04.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting the application for furlough leave of 21 days of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner in the past had surrendered late.
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 03:53:53 :::
2 17-wp-300-21j.odt
4. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 353, 224 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life. The petitioner has undergone sentence of 12 years 10 months and 15 days on the date of filing of the application for furlough leave. The petitioner on 29.01.2020 filed the application for furlough leave of 28 days. The Superintendent of Police, Amravati Central Jail, where the petitioner is undergoing the sentence, has not recommended the furlough leave of the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 rejected the furlough leave of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner surrendered late by 854 days in the year 2005 and by 1731 days in the year 2011.
5. The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition challenging the order dated 23.09.2020. We have carefully considered the reasons stated in the impugned order. The respondent no. 1 has rejected the furlough leave application of the petitioner relying on Rules 4(6) and 4(10) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole)(Amendment) Rules, 2018. The impugned order discloses that punishment of 6 months had been imposed on the petitioner on 13.08.2016 for surrendering late. The impugned order reflects that the petitioner had surrendered late by 854 days in the year 2005 and in the year 2011 the petitioner surrender late by 1731 days. ::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 03:53:53 :::
3 17-wp-300-21j.odt
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Murlidhar Ramchandra Bhalerao Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) ALLMR (Cri.) 2132] and in the case of Ramchandra Raghu Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra, judgment dated 25.06.2013 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2013 has held that if the prisoner released on furlough or parole was required to be arrested for bringing him back in prison, then he would not be entitled to be released on furlough or parole leave.
7. Though, in the facts of the present case, it is not being brought on record that the petitioner was arrested on earlier occasion but, it is equally true that surrendering late by 4 years 9 months without explanation, is sufficient to reject the request of the petitioner for furlough leave. It is well settled that furlough leave is not a matter of absolute right but, the right is regulated under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
8. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharge.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 03:53:53 :::