Ravindra Shantaram Sawant (In Jail) v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East), Nagpur And Another

1 1707cwp503.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 503 OF 2015.

Ravindra Shantaram Sawant ..vs.. The DIG Prisons (E) and anr. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.Mir Nagman Ali, Adv. for the petitioner.

Mrs.N.Tripati,APP for the respondents.

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND P.N.DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : JULY 17, 2015.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the impugned order dated 2/5/2015 and also reply tendered by respondent no.2. Heard learned APP. The rejection of furlough leave on the ground of late surrender appears to be erroneous. Total 11 occasions are pointed out. On 4 occasions petitioner was released on furlough and on remaining seven occasions he has been released on parole. On all occasions he has surrendered voluntarily. At least on three occasions she has surrendered on due date. One one occasion he surrendered late by 79 days and on another occasion he has surrendered late by 50 days. Provisions of Rule 4(4)(1) of Prisons (Bombay) Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959 are considered by this Court in the judgment reported at 2015(1) BCR (cri) 64 (Raju @ Rajabhau Bhagwantrao Wankhede and ors. ..vs.. DIG Prisons (E)(R) and anr). This court has held that mere late surrender by itself cannot have the effect of denial of furlough. It has been held that reasons for late surrender must find the evaluation in impugned order.

Similarly the surety namely Sau.Jyoti Ravindra Pawar has submitted an undertaking before this court and shown her readiness

2 1707cwp503.15.odt and willingness to stand as surety for petitioner. She has also agreed to furnish necessary cash surety.

In this situation, as we find impugned order not showing necessary application of mind and different surety is being offered, we direct respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law within four weeks from today.

With this observation, petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Chute.