Gajanan Babulal Battulwar v. State Of Mah.Thr. Deputy Inspector General Of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 645 OF 2021 (Shri Gajanan Babulal Battulwar, C-9971 (Presently in Central Prison Nagpur) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri Raju Kadu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents. .....
CORAM: M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
OCTOBER 26, 2021.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2] This is a petition to challenge the impugned order by which the petitioner has been denied Furlough.
3] In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the following particulars have been provided insofar as the petitioner's Furlough and Parole leave status is concerned :
The details of Furlough leave - Sr.
No.
Particulars Date of Release Due for Remarks Furlough Leave 14 days (Ext.
14 days) 02.05.2008 Surrender by 3 days i.e. on 03.06.2008
Furlough Leave 14 days (Ext.
14 days) Surrender by 27 days i.e.
on 11.04.2011 Furlough Leave (14 days (Ext.
14 days) as per direction issued by Hon'ble High court Nagpur 15.02.2011 12.12.2013 Surrender by 21 days i.e.
on 31.01.2014 Furlough Leave (14 days (Ext.
14 days) as per direction issued by Hon'ble High court Nagpur 30.07.2014 Surrender by 01 days i.e.
on 29.08.2014 Furlough Leave (28 days) 05.06.2016 Surrender Surrender himself on due date i.e. on 03.04.2016 Furlough Leave (28 days) 25.02.2017 Surrender Surrendered himself on due date i.e. on 26.03.2017 Furlough Leave (28 days) 01.03.2018 -- Arrested by the police authority and brought back to the prison before 15 days and offence under section NDPS act was registered against the petitioner.
The details of Parole leave -
Parole leave 30 days (ext.
for 30 days) Surrendered by 3 days i.e. on 10.07.2007 Parole leave 30 days (ext.
for 60 days) 08.05.2007 Surrendered by 02 days i.e.
on 23.03.2009 Parole leave 30 days (ext.
for 30 days) 20.12.2008 Surrendered by 38 days i.e.
on 16.12.2009 Parole leave 30 days (ext.
for 60 days) 08.09.2009 Surrendered by 16 days i.e.
on 14.08.2010 Parole leave 30 days (ext.
for 30 days) 30.04.2010 16.06.2011 Parole leave 15 days (ext.
for 55 days) Surrendered by 06 days i.e.
on 11.06.2013 Parole leave 30 days (ext.
for 60 days) 26.03.2013 19.11.2014 Surrendered by 01 days i.e.
on 19.02.2015 4] The circumstance that the petitioner surrendered after the due date on some occasions can be overlooked provided the conduct of the petitioner is otherwise proper. However, we note that on most occasions, the petitioner has not surrendered on the due date. Further, we note that on 01/03/2018, when the petitioner was released on Furlough, he had to be arrested and brought back to prison because of an offense under the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was registered against the petitioner. Having regard to such conduct, we feel that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
5] At the same time, we are conscious that at this stage, the petitioner cannot change his past record. Therefore, dismissal of this petition is likely to be construed as our sanction to never consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Parole or Furlough in the future. This, according to us, would be a quite unintended result of our order of the dismissal of this petition.
6] Therefore, we clarify that though we are not interfering it, the impugned order, in this case, the same need not come in the way of the authorities considering any future applications made by the petitioner seeking Parole or Furlough if, otherwise, such application can be granted in terms of the rules and regulations as applicable. In particular, we feel that if the conduct of the petitioner in the prison for the next six months is found to be good then, Parole or Furlough need not be declined to the petitioner based on his past record alone. No doubt, some stringent conditions can be imposed upon the petitioner to ensure that he returns in time or that he
does not indulge in any criminal activities while he is released on Parole or Furlough.
7] With the aforesaid observations, clarifications, and liberty, we dispose of this petition. There shall be no order for costs.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M.S. SONAK, J.) Sumit