Allowed

Golu @ Dipak Ananda Tayde (in Jail) v. D.I.G. (Prisons) (E) (R) Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC13 Apr 2018WP/310/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's furlough leave application. The rejection grounds, including pending appeal and lack of fear among criminals, were found arbitrary and unreasonable without basis in prior conduct.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to release petitioner on furlough leave within seven days upon furnishing surety.

Golu @ Dipak Ananda Tayde (in Jail) Vs D.I.G… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 cwp310.18.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.310 OF 2018

¶4

[Golu @ Dipak Ananda Tayde .vs. DIG Prisons, Nagpur and one]

¶5

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

¶6

- - - - Mrs. S.D. Paul, counsel (appointed) for the petitioner, Mrs. Tripathi, APP for the respondents.

¶7

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 13, 2018.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

By this criminal writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of the D.I.G. Prisons, Nagpur dated 15.1.2018 rejecting the furlough leave application of the petitioner.

¶10

The furlough leave application of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the petitioner is likely to abscond and involve himself in another crime if he is released on furlough. It is observed in the impugned order that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave, criminals would have no fear of committing crime. The furlough leave application of the petitioner is rejected as the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending.

¶11

There is no propriety in any of the reasons recorded by the D.I.G. Prisons, Nagpur for rejecting the furlough leave application of the petitioner. Merely because the appeal filed by a prisoner is pending, the furlough leave application of the said petitioner cannot be rejected. Rule 4 (11) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 is challenged in a number of criminal writ petitions and this court has prima facie found that the amended Rule 4 (11) is arbitrary and unreasonable.

¶12

We also do not find any propriety in rejecting the application on an apprehension that the petitioner would

¶13

2 cwp310.18.odt

¶14

abscond. The apprehension expressed by the respondents that the petitioner would abscond if he is released on furlough leave is without any basis. If the petitioner had absconded on earlier occasions, the said apprehension would have had some weight. There is however no observation in the impugned order that when the petitioner was released on parole or furlough leave on earlier occasions, he had absconded. The observation made in the impugned order that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave criminals would not be scared of committing the crime is not only unreasonable but is ridiculous. The same has no basis.

¶15

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave within seven days from the date on which the relative of the petitioner furnishes the surety as is required by Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Order accordingly.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

Gulande

Golu @ Dipak Ananda Tayde (in Jail) v. D.I.G. (Prisons) (E) (R) Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golu @ Dipak Ananda Tayde (in Jail) v. D.I.G. (Prisons) (E) (R) Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sau. Mamta Chaitmal Bokade Vs Sudhir S/O. Sitaram Kohad and Another

Dr. Rameshchandra Shankarlalji Saboo and Others Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Chief Secretary, Town Planning Department, Mumbai and Another

Ayesha Parveen W/O. Abdul Rahman Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Dept., Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Dr. Tikeshwar Gautamrao Ghotekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Jaripatka P.S. Nagpur

Dr. Ramdas S/O Govindrao Chaware Vs Sau. Archana Nerkar, Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati and 2 Others

Mohd. Iqba Mohd. Hanif Sheikh (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary of Home Department Mumbai and Others