Yogendra Subhash Usare (In Jail) v. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur And Another

1002wp2.15 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2015 (Yogendra Subhash Usare vs. The Superintendent, Central Prison and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri P.K. Dahat, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner. Ms. N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

---------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2015 The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by rejection of his application for furlough.

The petitioner appears to be undergoing sentence of ten years' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides and perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondents wherefrom it appears that application of petitioner for furlough came to be rejected considering adverse Police

1002wp2.15 2/2 report. It is revealed from the affidavit-in-reply of respondents that Police report was not in favour of petitioner and Police Authority had not recommended release of petitioner on furlough. However, the said statement does not appear to be correct as Police report dated 12/9/2014 of Additional Superintendent of Police, Amravati (Rural) reveals that the Police had not objected for release of petitioner on furlough.

We find that earlier when petitioner was released on furlough and parole, he was required to be arrested and brought back in prison after the period of 68 days and 459 days respectively. Considering the said aspect, we find that petitioner without any reason while on leave earlier deliberately over-stayed and as such, violated the Prison Rules. In view of this, we find no substance in the criminal writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed.

The fee payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner is quantified as rupees fifteen hundred.

JUDGE JUDGE khj