Bombay High Court
Swapnil S/O. Mahadeo Somkuwar (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr The Deputy ... on 18 July, 2017
Author: M.G. Giratkar
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Murlidhar G. Giratkar
1 CRIWP157.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Swapnil S/o Mahadeo Somkuar (In jail)
Convict No. C-8090,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] State of Maharashtra,
through the Deputy Inspector General
of Prison, (Eastern Region), Nagpur.
2] Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Mrunal S. Hiwase, Advocate appointed for the petitioner.
Mrs. N. R. Tripathy, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE and
MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 18, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1, dated 22.01.2016, ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:10:44 ::: 2 CRIWP157.17.odt thereby rejecting application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave.
3] The petitioner is undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment in Central Prison, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 148, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4] It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for furlough leave and the respondent no.2, rejected his application on the ground that there is adverse police recommendation and he is habitual in surrendering late in prison. It is submitted that every time, the petitioner surrendered himself in prison and he was never required to be arrested so also he was not absconding during the period of furlough leave. The conduct of the petitioner was good and satisfactory and he had not committed any crime during the period of parole and furlough leave. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1.
5] The respondents have filed the reply and strongly opposed the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner never ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:10:44 ::: 3 CRIWP157.17.odt surrendered on due date. It is further submitted that he surrendered late by 8 days, 13 days, 6 days and 5 days, respectively. It is further submitted that when the petitioner was released on parole leave on 22.05.2015, he did not surrender on due date and he was required to be arrested and brought back to the prison after five days of due date.
6] Ms. Hiwase, the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner pointed out a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 782/2016, dated 06.01.2017 and submitted that on the same grounds, this Court allowed the petition. 7] From a perusal of the chart in the reply filed by the respondents and the impugned order, it reveals that the application for furlough leave came to be rejected due to late surrender by the petitioner. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court granted furlough leave to the petitioner, who was alleged to be habitual in surrendering late. The respondent authorities must have punished the petitioner for late surrendering and therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court relied on by the ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:10:44 ::: 4 CRIWP157.17.odt learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for grant of furlough leave.
8] Hence, we allow this writ petition in terms of prayer clause (i) with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for furlough leave and grant the same in accordance with law and on usual conditions.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Fees of the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand Five hundred only) JUDGE JUDGE Diwale ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:10:44 :::