Bombay High Court
Pratap Kashinath Chavan (In Jail) vs D.I.G. (Prisons) (E) (R) Nagpur And ... on 29 January, 2018
Author: R. K. Deshpande
Bench: R. K. Deshpande, M.G.Giratkar
1 23judcwp1036.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1036 OF 2017
Pratap Kashinath Chavan,
C- 3096, detained in Central Prison,
Amravati. ........ PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1] D. I. G. (Prisons) (E)(R), Nagpur.
2] The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati. ...... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. S. D. Paul, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N. R. Tripathi, Additional Government Pleader for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
th
Date : 29 JANUARY, 2018 .
JUDGMENT ( Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2] The petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing life imprisonment for that purpose. The application is made by the petitioner for grant ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:03:57 ::: 2 23judcwp1036.17.odt of furlough leave for a period of 28 days is rejected by order dated 24.07.2017 and hence, this writ petition. 3] It is the stand taken by the respondents that the case is covered by Rule 4(4)(10) of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The submission is that the petitioner was released on parole leave on 01.07.2016, but he did not report on the due date and therefore, he was required to be arrested after period of 86 days on 26.10.2016 and offence punishable under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code was registered against him in Police Station Samaraspur, Dist. Amravati vide crime No. 269/2016 in which he was released on bail on 10.10.2016 by the learned First Class Judicial Magistrate, Amravati.
4] It is not the contention raised that once an offence is registered against the convict under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, the convict is permanently debarred from availing of parole and furlough leave. Last order of releasing on parole leave was passed on 01.07.2016 and he is entitled to make fresh application for furlough leave, if he so desires after a period of six months of the rejection of his ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:03:57 ::: 3 23judcwp1036.17.odt previous application, as per Rule 9 of the Rules. 5] It is not in dispute that after 26.10.2016, the petitioner has neither availed nor released on parole and furlough leave. The period of six months has already expired and therefore, the ground for rejection under Sub-Rule 10 of Rule 4 would not come in the way of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough leave. Otherwise, the entitlement of the petitioner for furlough leave is not in dispute.
6] In view of above, the order dated 24.07.2017 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to leave for a period of 28 days commencing from 12 th February, 2018 subject to terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Competent Authority for releasing him on furlough leave. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to report on the due date upon expiry of furlough leave, his further leave for a period of 28 days shall stand forfeited.
7] Learned appointed counsel appearing for the petitioner shall be entitled to fees of Rs. 1500/- from High ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:03:57 ::: 4 23judcwp1036.17.odt Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gohane
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:03:57 :::