Gulab Yunus Gulab Rasul v. State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy Inspector General Of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur And Another

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.493/2020 Gulab Yunus Gulab Rasul, Convict No. C/883, Aged 66 Years, Occ. Nil, Confined at Central Prison, Amravati.

.... PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra Through Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur.

Amravati, Tq. And Dist. Amravati.

2) The superintendent, Central Prison Amravati.

.... RESPONDENTS ____________________________________________________________ Ms. Shweta D. Wankhede, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. R. Chutke, APP for the respondents.

____________________________________________________________ CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 04/11/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) 1.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2) 2.

The present petition seeks to quash the order dated 01.06.2020, passed by the respondent no.1, denying the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough for 28 days. 3.

The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who points out that the past antecedents of the petitioner are not proper. It is detected from the chart on page 22 of para 7 of the reply, which demonstrates that on earlier five occasions the petitioner was released on parole. However, he had absconded and not surrendered in time and was required to be arrested and brought back.

4.

On the account of Covid - 19, the petitioner was released on parole on 12.03.2020 and was required to surrender within a period of 30 days. On this occasion, also, the petitioner did not surrender in time, but had surrendered only in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, dated 04.08.2020. Thus, we do not find any fault with the impugned order.

5.

The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 6.

Needless to mentioned that the petitioner is entitled to

(3) invoke the remedy of furlough or parole, if so entitled in law, in the future.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J) (R. K. DESHPANDE J.) Sarkate