Allowed

Shaikh Ashpak S/O. Shaikh Hassan (C-8138) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018WP/104/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition filing by a convict challenging the rejection of his furlough leave. The High Court allowed the petition, finding the reasons for rejection unsustainable, and quashed the impugned order directing the petitioner's release on furlough leave.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.09.2017 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on furlough leave as expeditiously as possible after complying with all necessary formalities.

Shaikh Ashpak S/O. Shaikh Hassan (C-8138) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)Cri. W.P. No. 0104 of 2018

¶2

(Judgment)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0104 of 2018

¶5

District : Aurangabad

¶6

Shaikh Ashpak s/o. Shaikh Hassan
(C-8138),
Central Prison, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through D.I.G., Prisons, Aurangabad.

¶9

2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶10

...........

¶11

Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S.W. Munde, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.01 and 02.

¶13

...........

¶14

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶15

 DATE : 03RD APRIL 2018

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.] :

¶17

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner
and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
respondents.

¶18

02.By the present petition, the petitioner -

¶19

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 0104 of 2018

¶20

convict no. C-8138 is challenging the order dated
14.09.2017, passed by respondent no.01 i.e. Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad, thereby
rejecting the prayer of the petitioner seeking
furlough leave.

¶21

03.The prayer of the petitioner seeking
furlough leave was rejected mainly on the ground that
there is adverse police report against the
petitioner.

¶22

04.Learned Advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the ground for rejection of furlough
leave is unsustainable. He submits, that no specific
instances have been mentioned in the impugned order
though it refers that the police report is adverse.
He submits, that the prison authorities have reported
that the behaviour of the petitioner - convict in the
prison is satisfactory and also recommended for grant
of furlough leave. He has, therefore, urged that the
petition be allowed and the petitioner may be
released on furlough leave.

¶23

05.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondents has vehemently opposed the
petition. He has invited our attention to the
affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State. He
has supported the impugned order by submitting that
as there was adverse police report, the petitioner
was refused grant of furlough leave. He has,
therefore, urged that the petition be dismissed.

¶24

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0104 of 2018

¶25

06.We have perused the affidavit in reply filed
on behalf of the State. The affidavit in reply
states that on account of adverse police report, the
competent authority has rightly passed the impugned
order. Along with the affidavit in reply, a
communication addressed by the Assistant Police
Commissioner, Aurangabad, to the Deputy Inspector
General of Prisons, Aurangabad, is placed on record.
The communication states that the surety of the
petitioner has not produced medical certificate of
petitioner's ailing daughter and the surety has not
produced necessary documents such as tax receipts,
7/12 extracts, etc. The affidavit further states
that the petitioner was once released on parole
leave. However, he did not surrender to the prison
authorities within time. The petitioner was produced
before the prison authorities by police and he
surrendered late by 142 days.

¶26

07.So far as the adverse police report, that
the medical certificate of ailing daughter of the
petitioner and surety documents were not submitted,
the ground is unsustainable. If the petitioner had
surrendered late to the prison authorities on earlier
occasion, the prison authorities are at liberty to
award separate punishment to the petitioner therefor.
Therefore, there is no reasonable ground for
rejecting prayer of the petitioner for furlough
leave.

¶27

(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 0104 of 2018

¶28

8.In the facts and circumstances of the case,
in our opinion, learned Advocate for the petitioner
has made out a case for grant of relief as prayed in
the petition.

¶29

9.In the result, the criminal Writ Petition is
allowed.

¶30

The impugned order dated 14.09.2017, passed by
respondent no.01 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons, Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside. The
petitioner - convict is directed to be released on
furlough leave, as expeditiously as possible, after
complying all necessary formalities.

¶31

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( Prasanna B. Varale )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

...........

¶33

puranik / CRIWP104.18

Shaikh Ashpak S/O. Shaikh Hassan (C-8138) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Ashpak S/O. Shaikh Hassan (C-8138) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Rajnikant S/O. Ramnarayan Pandey Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Latif Hasan Madari (C-9193) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh Vs K. Subramanyam, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mumbai and Others

Ambarishi S/O. Shripadrao Patil (C-4679) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Nilesh S/O. Hiralal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nimba Pundlik Patil (C-7476) Vs the State of Maharashtra