Allowed

Vinod Shashikant Ingle v. Special Police Inspector General (Prison) East Region Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC18 Dec 2023WP/737/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed a criminal writ petition seeking furlough leave. The court quashed the rejection order passed by the Special Police Inspector General, relying on the petitioner's voluntary surrender history and stating the relevant Rule is directory in nature.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order dated 31.08.2023 quashed; respondents directed to release petitioner on furlough leave.

Vinod Shashikant Ingle Vs Special… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:17454-DB

Judgment

925 wp 737.23

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

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 737/2023

¶7

Vinod Shashikant Ingle (C-5289),
Aged about 29 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Palso Badhe, Dist. Akola.

¶8

 …. PETITIONER

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. Special Police Inspector General (Prison), East Region, Nagpur.

¶11

2. Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

Ms. R. Singh, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. N.R. Tripati, Addl. Public Prosecutor (‘APP) for respondents.

¶14

 CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND
 M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

¶15

 DATE: 18.12.2023.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

¶18

the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment

925 wp 737.23

2.The petitioner has applied for furlough leave of 28 days
which has been rejected by the respondent No.1 vide order dated
31.08.2023. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 492 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. The petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment of six years
and two months. Respondent No.1 has rejected petitioner’s furlough
leave on the ground that on earlier occasions, he surrendered late by
30 days and the related crime is still pending. The reply-affidavit is
on the same line.

¶23

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that earlier, the petitioner was released on furlough leave
on 23.02.2022 and he has surrendered on due date on 17.02.2022.
Thereafter, the petitioner was released on emergency parole due to
pandemic situation. No fix date of return was given by the Jail
Authorities nor he was intimated through the Jail Administration,
therefore he surrendered after 30 days. Particularly, it is submitted
that the petitioner was not arrested, but g, he has surrendered
himself to the Jail. It appears that though the petitioner surrendered
late for 30 days, however, the petitioner at his own surrendered,

¶24

Judgment 925 wp 737.23

¶25

¶26

meaning thereby, he was not brought by force. The Police report
specifically says that during his earlier release on furlough leave, he
has not committed any act amounting to breach of law and orders.
Having regard to the facts, there is no likelihood of abscondence of
petitioner. Already action has been initiated against the petitioner
for late surrender under Section 48-A of the Prisons Act, 1894.

¶27

4.The petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in case
of Bhimrao Sakharam Jadhav Vs. Deputy Inspector General Prison
(East Region), Nagpur and another, (Criminal Writ Petition No.
436/2023, decided on 01.08.2023) to contend that Rule 4(10) of the
Prions (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 is of directory
nature. Since the petitioner on earlier both occasions surrendered
himself at his own, we deem it appropriate to release him on
furlough leave.

¶28

5.Having regard to the above facts, we find no justification
in rejecting the furlough leave for the petitioner. In view of that,
petition is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the order dated
31.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.1. We direct the

¶29

Judgment 925 wp 737.23

¶30

¶31

respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave, as
permissible under law on usual terms and conditions. Necessary
consequential order shall be passed within two weeks from the
receipt of communication of this order.

¶32

6.Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶33

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

¶34

Gohane

Vinod Shashikant Ingle v. Special Police Inspector General (Prison) East Region Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Shashikant Ingle v. Special Police Inspector General (Prison) East 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Neela Vipul Raja Vs Vipul Mukundbhai Raja

Chotu @ Srinumulla Gawade Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ps Dhamaracha Tehsil Ahiri Dist. Gadchiroli.

Praveen @ Pradeep Ramesh Pohankar (C-6274) Vs Special Police Inspector General (Prison) (East Region), Nagpur and Another.