MOTISINH KESRISINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Motisinh Kesrisinh undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison at Ahmedabad, by this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has brought under challenge the impugned Order dated 27-12-1993, passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Ahmedabad dismissing his application for first furlough leave, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the same and to grant his due furlough leave forthwith.

(2.) To briefly narrate few relevant facts, the petitioner was convicted under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer RI for life by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Narol by a judgment and order dated 15-2-1981. His appeal against the order of conviction and sentence stands dismissed by this Court and accordingly he is in jail right from the year 1981. It is his further case that during the entire tenure of his imprisonment, he has enjoyed twice parole and once furlough leave. He has also quite fairly stated in the petition that when he was released on second parole, he surrendered late by 2012 days in the year 1993, and that despite this fact, he was granted furlough by this Court wherein he had surrendered to the jail authorities in time. Under the circumstances, the grievance voiced by the petitioner is to the effect that though for his next furlough which had already become due, he had applied to the I. G. Prisons as long back as on 30/10/1993 the same has been rejected mainly on the ground of his earlier late surrender by 2012 days, constraining him to file the present writ petition.

(3.) Mrs. S. S. Patel, the learned Advocate for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order passed by I. G. Prisons submitted that merely because the petitioner had surrendered late by 2012 days that by itself was hardly a ground to refuse his rightful further furlough, more particularly in view of the fact that this Court itself in Special Criminal Application No. 1328 of 1993 has granted him furlough wherein he had surrendered in time. Mrs. Patel further submitted that this eloquent circumstance alone constitute special fact entitling the petitioner to be granted his next furlough due, and accordingly, he be so released forthwith.