✦ Bombay High Court · 06 Feb 2026

Mr. Shweta Wankhede/Chavhan, Advocate (appointed) & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 & Ors.

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 88. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The application is rejected. (ii) quantified as per rules. The fees of the appointed counsel be (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.

Judgment

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Shweta Wankhede/Chavhan, Advocate (appointed) for applicant. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant/State. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DATED : 06/02/2026 CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. ORAL JUDGMENT :

#3. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned appointed Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

#4. The present applicant approached this Court for quashing of the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR’). The FIR came to be lodged by the Superintendent of Nagpur Central Prison on 22.12.2016 stating that the applicant is convicted by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and was undergoing imprisonment at Nagpur (2)

4.apl.1144.2019.Judgment.odt central Prison. By order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Prisons, East Region, Nagpur, the applicant was released on furlough leave on 22.11.2016 for 28 days and he was expected to surrender himself on 21.12.2016 since then he is absconding and also floated and also committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the furlough leave and therefore, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant vide Crime No.3370/2016.

#5. Heard learned appointed counsel for the applicant, who submitted that even it is accepted that the applicant has surrendered late, but it was not an intentional act, due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not surrender on that day and therefore, he surrendered late by one day. Thus, there was no intention on the part of the present applicant. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.

#6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that during investigation, the complainant by communication dated 23.12.2016 addressed to the Deputy Director General of Prisons, Eastern Region, Nagpur communicated that applicant has surrendered himself on

22.12.2016 before the prison authority which is late by one day. (3)

4.apl.1144.2019.Judgment.odt During investigation, the answering respondent/non-applicant has sent a communication to the complainant for custody of the prisoner/applicant. He submitted that the material collected by the investigating agency shows that the applicant has committed the breach and therefore, this Court shall not exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR as the applicant failed to make out a case in view of the seven exceptions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.

#7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers, there is no dispute as to the fact that the present applicant was released on furlough leave. He was expected to appear before the prisoner authority on the 29th day, but he failed to appear and no plausible explanation is given by him for his non-appearance and therefore, the offence came to be lodged against him. Thus, considering the recitals of the FIR and the reply filed by the State, which has substance which shows that the applicant without assigning any reason, surrendered before the authority one day late when the furlough was given to him. Considering the prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. In view of that, this is not a fit case, wherein the power can be exercised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (4)

4.apl.1144.2019.Judgment.odt

#8. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The application is rejected. (ii) quantified as per rules. The fees of the appointed counsel be (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 224; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 06 Feb 2026. The bench was URMILA JOSHIPHALKE.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments