KAMAL M KANOJIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner presently lodged at Nasik Road Central Prison has assailed the rejection of his prayer for furlough by furlough sanctioning authority-respondent No. 4 and dismissal by respondent No. 3 of the appeal preferred by him against the said order of rejection. The petitioner-resident of Thana Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh was convicted by Addl. Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Sewree, Mumbai on. 25th November, 2008 for commission of offence under Sections 302, 392, 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer punishment as under :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_114_CRLJ_2013image1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) THE petitioner while preferring the petition in addition to the prayer of issuing writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of rejection of furlough by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 31.5.2001 and dismissal of his appeal by Appellate Authority Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 25-10-2011 and directing the respondent to release; him on furlough leave: had also prayed prayer (a) for declaring Maharashtra Circular No. PARCOT-1008/CR-605/Prison 3 dated 17.9.2011 and Circular No. 7720/2010 dated 30.9.2011 as unconstitutional, ultra. vires and invalid. However, upon the learned A.P.P. pointing out that condition No. 6, of furnishing local surety for prisoner, resident of other State mentioned in the circular dated 16.12.2008 bearing No. PARCOT-1008/, P.C.605 is already modified by the Government as per the direction given on 29th November, 2010 by Nagpur Bench of this Court, in Criminal Petition No. 576 of 2010 to the extent of now such a prisoner requiring to furnish local surety only from the place at which he would be availing parole or fur lough leave by issuing said circular dated 17.9.2011; the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that she is not pressing the prayer (a) of the petition. Hence, the petition is considered for the remaining prayers made by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel urged that 2nd application for furlough preferred the petitioner on 21st June, 2010 was rejected by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 18.2.2011 on the count of receipt of adverse reports dated 27.1.2011 from the D.I.G. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and from District Magistrate at Exhibit "C" Colly. Inter alia to the effect that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave he will not surrender back and since wife of the petitioner has solemnized second marriage there is no financial burden on the petitioner and in the event of release of the petitioner on furlough leave, the same will be harmful to people of village.