Criminal W.P.No.397/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 397 OF 2009 PETITIONER : Sopan Nivrutti Suralkar, Convict No.C-3220, Central Prison, Amravati. // VERSUS // RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the D.I.G. Prisons (E)(R) Nagpur. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. V.H.Khaparde, Adv. (appointed) for Petitioner. Mr. A.M.Deshpande, APP for respondents. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 10, 2009. Criminal W.P.No.397/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per D.D.Sinha, J) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. V. H. Khaparde, Adv. (appointed) for petitioner and Mr. A. M. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents. 2. This petition is directed against the order dt. 18.5.2009 passed by the competent Authority whereby the request of petitioner for grant of furlough leave came to be rejected. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the reason given by the competent Authority for rejection of furlough leave is totally unfounded and without justification. It is submitted that, earlier, on two occasions, the petitioner was released on parole and furlough and on both the occasions, surrendered before the jail Authorities on the due dates and there was no untoward incident happened during the period of parole/furlough leave. It is further contended that the petitioner neither has committed any offence nor extended any threat to the witnesses etc. It is also submitted that neither the complainant nor witnesses lodged any report to the Criminal W.P.No.397/2009 3 police on the earlier occasion in this regard. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law . 3. Mr. A. M. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that, in view of the adverse police report as well as apprehension expressed by the witnesses regarding danger to their lives if the petitioner is released on furlough leave, the competent Authority has rejected the application of petitioner in view of Rule 4 (4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that, the petitioner, who was released on parole/furlough leave on the earlier occasions, surrendered on the due date and there is no untoward incident reported during the said period. In the circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of parole. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dt. Criminal W.P.No.397/2009 4 18.5.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner be released on furlough leave for a period of two weeks from the date of his release after following the due procedure applicable in this regard. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the jail Authorities on the due date, failing which the jail Authorities, with the help of police, should apprehend the petitioner and bring him back to the prison. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE jaiswal