The Bench considered a writ petition challenging the rejection of a furlough application due to late surrender. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge against the impugned order of 21.7.2012.
No relief granted. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
289wp414.12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 414 OF 2012
(Janrao Khushalrao Bhuta .vs. D.I.G. Prisons (E)(R), Nagpur and anr.)
_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : 28.9.2012.
The communication addressed by the petitioner has been registered as 'Criminal Writ Petition'. We have, accordingly, appointed Mrs.S.P.Dhotre, learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. Subsequently, by our order dated 18th September, 2012, the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner was granted leave to amend the petition by raising a challenge to order dt.27.7.2012. It appears that, by order dt.21.7.2012, the application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough was rejected. Inadvertently, in our order the date is referred to as '27.7.2012' instead of '21.7.2012'.
Be that as it may, the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner has filed a substantive
2
289wp414.12.odt
Writ Petition challenging the afore-said order.
By virtue of the impugned order dt.21.7.2012, the respondents have rejected the application of the petitioner seeking release on furlough on the ground that the petitioner had surrendered late by 1, 14 and 87 days. According to the respondents, by virtue of the provision of Rule 4(1)(1) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the petitioner was not entitled to be released on furlough.
We have heard the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. According to us, the order of respondents cannot be faulted with as, inadvertently, the petitioner had surrendered late on the earlier occasions. We, thus, see no merit in the present petition and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- .
JUDGE
JUDGE
jais
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of petitioner's furlough application due to late surrender is maintainable under Rule 4(1) of Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
Whether the petitioner's writ petition challenging the furlough rejection order warrants allowance.
Janrao Khushalrao Bhuta
D.I.G. Prisons (E)(R), Nagpur
P.V. Hardas
A.P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
