Allowed

Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Yusuf (in Jail) v. Deputy General Inspector of Prison Eastern Region Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC30 Oct 2018WP/509/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition seeking furlough leave for a petitioner involved in a bomb blast case. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the release of the petitioner for 28 days pending a bomb blast conviction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 17.04.2018 quashed and set aside; petitioner released on furlough leave for 28 days subject to conditions.

Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Yusuf (in Jail) Vs Deputy General… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

CRI.WP509.18(J)

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.509 OF 2018

¶5

Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Yusuf, Aged about 65 years, R/o. Bismilla Galli, Golibar 5^th Road, Santacruz East, Mumbai. (C/4380, Central Prison, Amravati)

¶6

.. PETITIONER

¶7

--Versus ---

¶8

Deputy General Inspector of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur.

¶9

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati. . .RESPONDENTS

¶10

¶11

Shri S.D.Chande with Shri Raju Kadu, Advocates for petitioner. Ms T.H.Udeshi, APP for respondents

¶12

CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE and VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 30.10.2018

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K.Deshpande, J.)

¶14

Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶15

Heard finally by the consent of learned counsels appearing for the

¶16

parties.

¶17

The claim of the petitioner for releasing him on furlough leave for

¶18

a period of 28 days has been rejected by order dated 17.04.2018 passed by

¶19

¶20

CRI.WP509.18(J)

¶21

Deputy Inspector General (Prisons), Eastern Region, Nagpur. This is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

¶22

The reason assigned is that the petitioner was involved in the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 307, 324, 326, 435 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 151 of the Railways Act, in relation to bomb blast case. Therefore, the release was not recommended by the police as well as the Jail Authorities.

¶23

In para 6 of the reply of the respondents a chart is given showing that that on five occasions the petitioner was released on furlough leave and on three occasions he was released on parole leave. On some occasions, the petitioner surrendered late. Lastly, he was released on parole leave on 30.09.2016 and he returned back on due date i.e. on 04.10.2016. It is not the stand that when the petitioner was released on furlough or parole leave, on earlier occasions, he had misused the liberty or committed any offence. In one similar case, involving the accused in bomb blast case, bearing Criminal Writ Petition No.351/2018, we had granted furlough leave to the accused on 18.09.2018 after taking into consideration the decision rendered by this Court (Criminal Writ Petition No.2027/2017 at Principal Seat) releasing other accused persons involved in bomb blast case. We do not find any impediment in releasing the present petitioner on furlough leave.

¶24

¶25

CRI.WP509.18(J)

¶26

In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.04.2018 passed by Deputy Inspector General(Prisons), is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to release on Furlough leave for 28 days, on such terms and conditions as the authority shall deem fit and proper. Besides that while on furlough leave, the petitioner shall report the concerned police station once in a week and before leaving the place of his residence, he shall provide an intimation to the concerned police station. If the petitioner commits an act of misconduct or fails to return on due date or commits offences, the same shall affect his release on the next occasions.

¶27

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Andurkar

Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Yusuf (in Jail) v. Deputy General Inspector of Prison Eastern Region Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Yusuf (in Jail) v. Deputy General Inspector of Prison Eastern Region Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waman S/O. Ramkrishnaji Kolte Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Collector Bhandara and Others

Sau. Geeta W/O. Mangal @ Satyaprakash Yadav Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Department of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Mrs. Navita Avadesh Yadav Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Dr. Pradeep Arora S/O Sh. Brij Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai

Shaikh Yasin Shaikh Gaffar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Primary Education Department, Mumbai and Others

Bank of India... Vs Namdeo Sadbaji Zade....