Bombay High Court
Kunal S/O Bharat Goswami vs Deputy Inspector General Of Prison ... on 21 February, 2018
Author: M.G.Giratkar
Bench: R.K.Deshpande, M.G.Giratkar
1 wp1024.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1024 OF 2017
Kunal s/o. Bharat Goswami,
Aged about 26 years, r/o.Indira
Nagar, Nara Road, Behind
Jaripatka Police Station,
Jaripatka, Nagpur.
[C/9509, Central Prison,
Nagpur]. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1.Deputy Inspector General of
Prison (East Region),
Nagpur.
2.Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:47:30 :::
2 wp1024.17.odt
____________________________________________________________
Ms Sonali B. Khobragade, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms T.H.Udeshi, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 21st February, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dt.20.9.2017, by which the application of petitioner for furlough leave came to be rejected on the ground that surety is not competent to control the convict.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:47:30 ::: 3 wp1024.17.odt undergone imprisonment for three years, three months and 16 days. Petitioner applied for furlough leave on 29.6.2017. The Sanctioning Authority i.e. respondent no.1 directed the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur to file report. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police submitted Inquiry Report on 5.9.2017. In the report, it was submitted that surety of the petitioner leaves at present address from last 20 years and she had supplied tax receipt. It was objected for the reason that the surety being a lady would not be in a position to control the convict/petitioner. There is possibility of absconding of the petitioner. Therefore, respondent no.1 rejected the application of petitioner under Rule 4 (4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
4. Heard Ms Sonali Khobragade, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms T.H.Udeshi, learned A.PP. for the respondent/State. From the perusal of report of Assistant Police Commissioner, Nagpur, it is clear that surety of petitioner is residing since last 20 years on the given address. She had supplied tax receipt. Respondent no.1 wrongly rejected the application of petitioner under Rule 4 (4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules on the ground that the surety is not competent to ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:47:30 ::: 4 wp1024.17.odt control the petitioner. For the first time, the petitioner applied for grant of furlough leave. There is nothing to show that the petitioner is likely to abscond. Surety of petitioner is ready to take surety. She had supplied the tax receipt. Therefore, rejection of application of petitioner under Rule 4 (4) of Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules is illegal. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order :
// ORDER // Petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave for a period of 21 days, within a period of 15 days, on such terms and conditions as they may deem fit.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:47:30 ::: 5 wp1024.17.odt ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:47:30 :::