Allowed

Kishor Maniram Dhurve (Convict No. C/697) v. State of Mah. Thr. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur and Another.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2023WP/679/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in open prison challenged refusal of furlough leave due to relatives' financial inability to post bond and adverse police report. Court held bond not mandatory under Dipak Wakalekar case and rejected vague police report without basis, allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed, impugned order quashed, respondent directed to release petitioner on furlough accepting bond from relative within four weeks.

Kishor Maniram Dhurve (Convict No. C/697) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.679 OF 20 23

¶4

Kishor Maniram Dhurve, convict No.C/697, Aged – 45 years, Occ. Nil, Confined at Open Prison, Morshi.

¶5

... PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur.

¶8

The Superintendent, Open Prison, Morshi

¶9

… RESPONDENTS.

¶10

_____________________________________________________________ Smt. Shweta Chavhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Tripathi, Addl.P.P. for the State

¶11

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND M.W. CHANDWANI, J J. DATED : 15.12.2023.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)

¶13

RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶14

The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶15

¶16

The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 302, 149 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 07.01.2016. The petitioner was transferred from Central Prison to Open Prison, Morshi on 12.02.2023. The petitioner has applied for furlough leave of 28 days. The proposal was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Eastern Region, Nagpur. The Police verification report was called from the concerned Superintendent of Police. Since the police report went adverse, respondent no.1 has declined to grant furlough leave which is under challenge.

¶17

The State resisted petition by filing the reply-affidavit. It is contended that though the petitioner’s relative was ready to execute a bond however she was not financially capable. Secondly, the police report was adverse and thus, the petitioner is held to be not entitled for release on furlough leave.

¶18

Undisputedly, the petitioner has been transferred to the Open Prison Morshi. Our attention has been invited to the decision of this Court in case of Dipak S/o Sudhakar Wakalekar vs. The State of Maharashtra dated 06.06.2011 (In Criminal Writ Petition No.848/2010 with one anr.), wherein relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court,

¶19

¶20

it is concluded that the convict confined in Open prison can be released on parole/furlough by dispensing with the requirement of execution of bond by the relatives. In case at hand, the petitioner’s relative was ready to execute a bond, and thus, the petitioner’s entitlement cannot be denied on account of financial incapacity of the relative.

¶21

We have gone through the police verification report of the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat. It has been stated that in case of petitioner’s release, there is likelihood of breach of law and order. The report does not specify the instances or justify the reason which bent upon to give adverse report. Besides mere speculation, we did not see anything which could be construed as a conceivable threat. The petitioner pointed out that earlier on two occasions he was released on parole/furlough and has surrendered on due date.

¶22

In view of the above, the petitioners is well entitled for release on furlough leave. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the respondent no.1. The concerned Authority shall pass appropriate order of releasing the petitioner on furlough by accepting the bond of relative and comply rest formalities.

¶23

¶24

Necessary orders be passed within four weeks from today.

¶25

Informed the concerned accordingly.

¶26

Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

¶27

(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶28

Trupti

Kishor Maniram Dhurve (Convict No. C/697) v. State of Mah. Thr. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Maniram Dhurve (Convict No. C/697) v. State of Mah. Thr. Deputy Inspector General 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

Sagar S/O. Suresh Gavhane Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Ansing, Dist. Washim

Mohammad Shaqeeb Sohail S/O Nazeer Mohammad and 2 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Mankapur City Nagpur and Another

Syed Ismail Syed Babbu and Othr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Janefal

Sumit S/O Mahesh Naidu Vs Mrs. Sonam W/O Sumit Naidu

Kamlesh Ajabrao Ghule Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth Tq. and Dist.Amravati

Pawan S/O Mohan Gedam (C/ 10287) Vs Deputy Inspector General (Prision) Nagpur and Another.