Allowed

Chandan Ramchandra Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Apr 2016WP/123/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition filed by a petitioner seeking release on furlough. The High Court set aside the lower order rejecting the furlough application as the record showed the overstay period had been struck off due to parole extension. The appeal dismissal was also set aside, and the petitioner was ordered released on furlough.

What did the court decide?

Order rejecting furlough and dismissing appeal set aside; petitioner released on furlough on usual terms.

Chandan Ramchandra Lokhande Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cri wp 123-14.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2014

¶5

Chandan Ramchandra Lokhande

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. Yashpal Thakur Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner Mrs. S.D. Shinde APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶14

DATE : APRIL 28, 2016.

¶15

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶16

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶17

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

¶18

18.3.2013. The said application came to be rejected by

¶19

order dated 13.9.2013. The appeal preferred by the

¶20

petitioner against the said order of rejection came to be

¶21

dismissed, hence, this petition.

¶22

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶23

cri wp 123-14.doc

¶24

The application of the petitioner for furlough came to

¶25

be rejected only on the ground that on 19.9.2012, when the petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back to prison in time and he surrendered to the prison after 21 days. Thus, there was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 21 days, hence, it was apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he may not report in time and may abscond.

¶26

Learned APP has brought to our notice the fact that

¶27

when the petitioner was released on parole on 19.9.2012, he preferred an application for extension of the period of parole. The said application came to be granted, hence, the fact that the petitioner overstayed for a period of 21 days came to be struck off from the record of the petitioner in jail. Thus, in view of the fact that the period of parole was extended, it cannot be said that there was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 21 days. Thus, the reason for rejecting the application for furlough is totally incorrect as in view of

¶28

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶29

cri wp 123-14.doc

¶30

extension of furlough, it cannot be said that there was any

¶31

overstay by the petitioner.

¶32

In view of the above facts, the order rejecting the

¶33

application for furlough of the petitioner is set aside. So also

¶34

the order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is set aside.

¶35

The petitioner be released on furlough on the usual terms

¶36

and conditions as set out by the jail authorities.

¶37

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶38

[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶39

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3

Chandan Ramchandra Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Ramchandra Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohmad Naim Nabi Mohmad Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gurunath Krishna Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Balu Warhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Ramkisan Duglas Alias Duglach Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad Devaram Shelake Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Ramchandra Pol Vs the State of Maharashtra