1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.299 of 2010 Kisana Mirgu Chaudhari, Convict No. C-6179, Central Prison, Nagpur. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons [Eastern Region], Nagpur. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur. .... Respondents. ***** Mr. R. M. Daruwala Adv. [appointed] for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Public Prosecutor for respondents. ***** CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND P.B. VARALE,JJ. Date : 16th Sept., 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard 2 finally. 2. In the midst of hearing of this petition, the question had arisen as to facilities to be provided to the Advocates who are either from the Legal Aid Panel, or engaged by the prisoners privately, calling on the prison to meet the prisoners. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor was asked to take instructions. He has taken instructions and tendered before this Court a copy of letter received from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur. The letter contains the following statement :- It is informed that this Jail Administration has decided that on every Second and Fourth Saturday, Advocates are permitted to meet the prisoners throughout day. Similarly, Advocates, who find it extremely essential to meet their clients on other days [except the above two days], they are allowed to call on the prisoners between 9-00 and 11-00 a.m. 4. Above issue is treated as sorted out in view of the concessions which have been announced through the letter, subject-matter. 5. Coming to the merit of the case, it is seen that the adverse police report was the main cause of rejection 3 of petitioner s prayer for release on furlough. 6. In view of the further enquiry conducted by police, it has revealed that the surety offered by the petitioner has expressed her willingness. 7. In view of this, the prayer for grant of release on furlough is liable to be allowed. 8. The petitioner be released on leave prayed for by him for a period of thirty days. 9. The Superintendent of Police [Rural], Nagpur, is directed to take a note that he will have to read between the lines the circumstances, namely when initially the report was called, it was adverse, and later, it was favourable in the light of prisoner s complaint that the first report was adverse, since the illegal gratification demanded by the police personnel concerned was not paid by the relatives of the prisoner. An endeavour should be made to see that such instances do not recur, and the complaint by the petitioner about the behaviour of police personnel does not go unnoticed. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to 4 communicate this order to the Prison Authorities as well as to the Superintendent of Police [Rural], Nagpur, for his taking a note of direction given by this Court and appropriate action. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly in terms of Paragraph Nos. 8,9 and 10. JUDGE JUDGE -0-0-0-0- |hedau| 5