Disposed

Rahim Ibrahim Mirza, Convict No. C-5668 v. the D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and 3 Oths

Bombay HC8 Dec 2010WP/577/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letter petition challenged the refusal of furlough leave granted to a jail inmate with a history of late reporting and jail punishments. The High Court declined to interfere with the authorities' reasonable decision but directed reconsideration after three months if the petitioner assured punctual reporting.

What did the court decide?

No immediate relief granted; petition disposed of with liberty to apply for furlough after three months if punctual reporting is assured.

Rahim Ibrahim Mirza, Convict No. C-5668 Vs the D.I.G… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.577 of 2010 [Rahim Ibrahim Mirza Vs. DIG Prison & others]

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Petition received by Post.
Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for respondents.

¶6

CORAM: A.H. JOSHI AND
A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 08th December, 2010.

¶8

01. This is a Letter-Petition.

¶9

02.Petitioner claims that his prayer for
grant of furlough leave has been refused.

¶10

03.Heard.

¶11

04.Admittedly, the petitioner was late in
reporting to jail on earlier occasions of his
release on furlough � on first time by 96 days,
and on second and third times by seven days
each.

¶12

05.Admittedly, the petitioner has been
punished for jail offence by forfeiture of
remission.

¶13

2

¶14

06.Petitioner�s recent prayer for grant of
furlough leave is rejected on the ground of
adverse police report. Petitioner claims that
the said adverse report has been sent
deliberately, and is erroneous.

¶15

07.It is seen that on earlier occasion
also, petitioner had approached this Court, and
after passing of order by this Court, he was
released on furlough.

¶16

08.Considering the facts admitted in the
petition, it has to be accepted that the
petitioner is in the habit of availing furlough
and reporting the Jail late.

¶17

09.In this background, the opinion reached
by the Authorities that there is a chance of
petitioner�s following what he has done even now
if he is released on furlough is reasonable.

¶18

10.If the petitioner�s conduct of failing
to report is considered adverse to him,
perpetually it may disentitle him for getting
furlough, as it would be used against him every
time.

¶19

11.In this background, we are of the view
that on this occasion of refusal, no
interference be done.

¶20

¶21

12.In the event petitioner applies for
furlough afresh after three months, his
application be considered on its own merits and
not being influenced by this order or his
earlier late reporting, if he assures punctual
reporting.

¶22

13. Petition is disposed of.

¶23

14.Superintendent of Jail concerned should
communicate to the petitioner contents of this
order and liberty available to him to apply for
furlough after three months.

¶24

15. Steno copy of this order be supplied to learned APP free of cost for due compliance.

¶25

JudgeJudge

¶26

|Hedau|

Rahim Ibrahim Mirza, Convict No. C-5668 v. the D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and 3 Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim Ibrahim Mirza, Convict No. C-5668 v. the D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and 3 Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Hanumanta Dhurve, Convict No. C-3985 Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Pandharkawada

Mahesh Janardhan Gonnade, Convict No. C 7247 Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Divison and Anr.

Santosh Dyandeo Tidke Vs State of Mah. Thru Pso

Abdul Kareem S/O Ahemad Saheb (Prop. T.K. Bartanwale) Vs State of Mah. Thr. Commissioner of Police Nagpur and Anr.

Shyamrao Shripath Pakhare, Convict No. C 40 Vs the D.I.G. Prison (C) (R) Amravati Division and Anr.

Jagdeo Bhika Khate, Convict No. C 3173 Vs the D.I.G. Prison (C) (R) Amravati and Anr.