Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
RINKU KUMAR RAMNIVAS GAUTAM – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON, NAGPUR – Respondent
Judgment
Judgment
1
1
wp381.21.odt
wp381.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 381/2021
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 381/2021
Rinku Kumar Ramnivas Gautam
Rinku Kumar Ramnivas Gautam,
,
Aged about 26 years,
Aged about 26 years,
(In Jail), Convict No. C-5689,
(In Jail), Convict No. C-5689,
Central Prison, Amravati
Central Prison, Amravati
….
….
PETITIONER
PETITIONER
//
//
VERSUS //
VERSUS //
1]
1]
Deputy Inspector General of Prison
Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
,
Nagpur
Nagpur
2]
2]
Superintendent of Prison
Superintendent of Prison,
,
Amravati
Amravati
….
…. RESPONDENT(S)
RESPONDENT(S)
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Shri A.J. Dhoble, Advocate (appt.) for the petitioner
Shri A.J. Dhoble, Advocate (appt.) for the petitioner
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE
& AMIT B. BORKAR
& AMIT B. BORKAR
, JJ.
, JJ.
JULY 09, 2021
JULY 09, 2021
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
: (PER:-AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
: (PER:-AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1]
Heard.
2]
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3]
By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated
04/02/2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting the application of the
petitioner for furlough leave of 28 days on the ground that there is adverse
police report.
Judgment
Judgment
2
2
wp381.21.odt
wp381.21.odt
4]
The petitioner is a convict for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing imprisonment for life
at Central Prison, Amravati. The petitioner on 07/02/2020 filed an
application for furlough leave of 28 days which came to be rejected by the
impugned order dated 04/02/2021. The petitioner has therefore challenged
the impugned order by way of present writ petition.
5]
This Court on 10/06/2021 issued notices to the respondents.
The respondent no. 2 in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court has filed
reply stating that the petitioner is ordinary resident of Uttar Pradesh and
therefore the police report was called from the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Siddharth Nagar, Uttar Pradesh which is adverse to the petitioner and
therefore the application of the petitioner has been rejected as per Rule 4(4)
and Rule 4(6) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)
Rules alongwith Government Notification dated 16/04/2018.
6]
We have carefully considered the impugned order and the reply
filed by the respondent no. 2. We have also scrutinized the police report
submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh. On careful perusal of the police report, it is clear that the report
clearly states that there is no possibility of disturbing peace and tranquility,
and therefore there is no reason to term the said police report as adverse to
the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner is otherwise also
eligible for release on furlough leave. We are satisfied that rejection of the
Judgment
Judgment
3
3
wp381.21.odt
wp381.21.odt
furlough leave application of the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 is not
sustainable.
7]
Hence, the following order:-
(a)
The impugned order dated 04/02/2021 passed by
the respondent no. 1 is quashed and set aside.
(b)
The respondent no. 1 is directed to release the
petitioner on furlough leave of 28 days on such terms and
conditions as he deems fit and proper.
(c)
Fees of the advocate appointed to represent the
petitioner is quantified at Rs. One Thousand Five Hundred
which shall be paid to hi
