The High Court extended the petitioner's prison furlough by 14 days due to his mother's illness and his inability to afford tests. Prison punishment for overstay and forfeited security were set aside and refunded.
Furlough extended by 14 days; prison punishment for overstay set aside; security deposit refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
jdk 1 8a.crwp.1515.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1515 OF 2016
Rahul Laxman Padwal
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mrs. S.D. Shinde A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 26, 2016
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough
which came to be granted and the petitioner was ordered to be released on furlough from 4.10.2015 to 17.10.2015. As the mother of the petitioner was unwell, the petitioner four days after release, preferred an application for extension of furlough by 14 days. The said application came to be rejected by order
1 of 3
jdk 2 8a.crwp.1515.16.doc
dated 31.10.2015 on the ground that though the mother of the petitioner was advised for CT Scan and MRI, the said tests were not conducted. After 14 days was over, the petitioner surrendered back to the prison on his own on 1.11.2015. The petitioner is now seeking that his furlough be extended by 14 days.
3 It is seen that the extension of furlough was sought on the ground that the mother of the petitioner was ailing. This fact is not denied by the authorities. However, the only reason for rejection of the application for extension of furlough is that though the Doctor had advised CT Scan and MRI tests for the mother of the petitioner, those tests were not done till 31.10.2015. Hence, the application for furlough was rejected.
4 The case of the petitioner is that he comes from poor financial background, there was no other person in the family who could take care of his mother, he could not arrange necessary finances for the CT Scan and MRI test, hence, these tests were not carried out till 31.10.2015.
2 of 3
jdk 3 8a.crwp.1515.16.doc
5 Looking to the fact that it is not denied that the mother of the petitioner was unwell, we are inclined to extend the period of furlough by 14 days. Prison punishment imposed if any, on account of overstay of 14 days of furlough, is set aside. Security deposit which is forfeited, be refunded to the petitioner.
7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner
who is in Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.
[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's application for extension of furlough should be granted given his mother's illness and financial inability to conduct medical tests.
Whether punishment for overstaying on furlough should be imposed.
Rahul Laxman Padwal
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Anuja Prabhulessai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
