Allowed

Kashinath Barku Chavhan v. State of Mah. Thr. Secretary Home Dep. (Prison), Mumbai and 4 Others

Bombay HC20 Apr 2021WP/360/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A convicted prisoner challenging rejection of furlough leave due to late surrender. Court allowed relief directing respondent to grant leave for third time while ensuring future compliance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03/06/2020 was quashed; respondent directed to grant furlough leave subject to future non-violation of surrender conditions.

Kashinath Barku Chavhan Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secretary Home… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

WP360.201.odt-Judgment

¶2

1/4

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETN. NO. 360 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:-Kashinath Barku Chavhan,
Presently at Central Prison, Amravati,
Convicted Prisoner No. C-2972).

¶6

...VERSUS...

¶7

RESPONDENTS:- 1.The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

2.Special Inspector General (Prison), Eastern Region, Wardha Road, Nagpur.

¶9

3.Deputy Inspector General (Prison), Eastern Region, Nagpur.

¶10

4.Superintendent of Police, Washim.

¶11

5.Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

¶12

Mr. N.M.Kolhe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms N.R.Tripathi, A.P. P. for the respondents.

¶13

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 20.04.2021.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)

¶16

1. Heard.

¶17

KHUNTE

¶18

WP360.201.odt-Judgment

¶19

2/4

¶20

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶21

By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 30/06/2020 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting furlough leave application of the petitioner. The petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The petitioner has completed 14 years of imprisonment and presently he has been lodged in the Amravati Central Prison.

¶22

The petitioner on 25/01/2020 applied for grant of furlough leave by application No.588 of 2019. The respondent No.2, by order dated 03/06/2020, has rejected the furlough leave of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not surrendered himself on due date and was brought to prison late by 512 days by Police.

¶23

The petitioner has therefore filed present petition challenging order dated 03/06/2020. The petitioner in paragraph-5 of his petition stated that he has filed Criminal Writ Petition No.734 of 2017 and this Court had allowed the application for grant of furlough leave by order dated 12/02/2018.

¶24

KHUNTE

¶25

WP360.201.odt-Judgment

¶26

3/4

¶27

We have carefully considered the impugned order. On

¶28

scrutiny of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner had not
surrendered on due date and was brought to prison late by 512 days,
way back in the year 2011. The period of almost 10 years has elapsed
after the petitioner surrendered late.

¶29

The object of furlough rules is to humanise penal system and to enable the prisoner to maintain continuity with his family life and to deal with the family matters and to save him from evil effects of continuous jail life and to enable him to gain self-confidence and to maintain constructive hopes and active interest in life.

¶30

Earlier, this Court by order dated 12/02/2018 in Criminal Writ Petition No.734 of 2018 had directed release of the petitioner on parole leave. Therefore, one more chance needs to be given to the petitioner so that the petitioner shall have opportunity to meet his family and relatives.

¶31

We, therefore, pass following order.

¶32

i. The impugned order dated 03/06/2020 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.

¶33

ii. The respondent No.2 is directed to grant furlough leave

¶34

KHUNTE

¶35

WP360.201.odt-Judgment

¶36

4/4

¶37

application of the petitioner upon such terms and
conditions as may be imposed by respondent No.2,
including condition to secure the presence of the
petitioner before expiry of his leave period.

¶38

iii)It is made clear that in case the petitioner surrenders late
after due date, the petitioner shall not be entitled for
furlough leave in future.

¶39

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶40

(AMIT B. BORKAR, J)(Z.A.HAQ, J)

¶41

KHUNTE

Kashinath Barku Chavhan v. State of Mah. Thr. Secretary Home Dep. (Prison), Mumbai and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Barku Chavhan v. State of Mah. Thr. Secretary Home Dep. (Prison), Mumbai and 4 Others

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

Kunal Shivcharan Tayade Vs State of Maharashatra

Gaurav S/O Arjun Kshirsagar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Beltarodi Nagpur and Another

Nilesh S/O Mahadevrao Tadas Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Seloo, Tq. Seloo, Dist. Wardha and Another

Mahadev Ravindra Kapde Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. D.I. G. Prison (East), Nagpur and Another

Abdul Hasan Bande Hasan Mistry Vs Deputy Inspector General Prison, East Nagpur and Another

Sahil Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Lohara, Dist. Yavatmal and Another