PANKAJ AMRUTLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Petitioner-Pankaj Amrutlal, the convict prisoner undergoing lifer at the Central Prisons, Ahmedabad, by this Special Criminal Application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has moved this Court challenging the impugned order dated 6-11-1992 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Ahmedabad rejecting his second furlough leave application on the short ground of the alleged adverse police opinion, inter alia praying for granting the same on his personal-bond forthwith.

(2.) . Mrs. S. S. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer R. I. for life for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated 23-8-1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Mrs. Patel further submitted that the petitioner is in Jail since last more than 6 years; including some period undergone as an under-trial prisoner. It was further submitted that till today, petitioner has not enjoyed any parole leave, except one furlough leave two years back, wherein he surrendered himself to the Jail authorities in time. It was further submitted that while on furlough leave no untoward incident has been recorded against the petitioner. Not only that but there is not a single jail offence reported against the prisoner and thus the conduct of the petitioner-prisoner inside and outside the Jail is without any blemish. Mrs. Patel further submitted that by this time, this Court has given good number of decisions on the identical facts where this Court has despite so-called 'adverse police opinion' granted parole/furlough and also given guidelines and yet the same are conveninently ignored constraining poor prisoners to come to this Court for parole/furlough leave, as the case may be. On the basis of above submissions, Mrs. Patel finally urged that despite the above tell-tale facts. Inspector General of Prisons, Ahmedabad, for the reasons best known to him, has not granted second furlough leave due to the prisoner on the ground of alleged adverse police opinion which is indeed not substantiated by any material worth the name on record.

(3.) . As against the above, Mr. R. P. Solanki, the learned A.P.P. submitted that there was definite adverse police opinion of the D. S. P. of the area against the prisoner, and in that view of the matter, Inspector General of Prisons was quite justified in not granting the second furlough to the petitioner.