Yogesh Balasaheb Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought extension of furlough due to ankle injury and moved mother's issues. Court granted extension, granting release and setting aside punishment for overstay, noting the petitioner could not walk to jail.
What did the court decide?
Order allowing extension of furlough and setting aside any prison punishment imposed for the overstay period. The rule is made absolute.
What the court decided
Sherla V.
wp.1366.2016_1.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1366 OF 2016
Yogesh balasaheb Ingale ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Ms.Rohini Dandekar, Adv. appointed for the Petitioner Mr.H.J. Dedia, APP, for Respondent - State
CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE: AUGUST 23, 2016
P.C.:
- Heard both sides.
- Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's furlough extension should be granted considering his medical condition and inability to travel to the jail personally.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Yogesh balasaheb Ingale
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
V.K. TAHILRAMANI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court