The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, discharged the rule in a criminal writ petition, accepting the rejection of the petitioner's application for furlough due to his history of overstays and offence committed during parole.
Rule discharged. Relief sought by petitioner denied.
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 3.crwp.167.15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2015
Baba Tukaram Gaikwad
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Ms. Kirti Godbole i/b Mrs. Indrani Koparkar Advocate for Petitioner Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 08, 2016
ORAL ORDER : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough. The said application was rejected on 8.5.2014. Being aggrieved thereby, appeal was preferred. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3 The main ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough is that in the year 2009 when the petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back to the
1 of 2
jdk 2 3.crwp.167.15.doc
prison in time. There was an overstay on the part of the petitioner of 61 days. In the year 2011 when the petitioner was released on furlough he did not report back in time and there was an overstay of 32 days on his part. Despite these facts, the petitioner was released on parole in the year 2012 i.e. 15.11.2012. Instead of reporting back in time, the petitioner absconded and ultimately he had to be traced and arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. There was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 133 days. One other reason for rejecting the application for furlough is that in the year 2012 when the petitioner was released on parole, he committed an offence which is registered at Dattawadi police station vide CR No. 3096 of 2013. The said case is under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. This shows that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him. In view of these facts, we cannot find fault with the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough. Hence, Rule is discharged.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the furlough application ought to be quashed in view of the petitioner's repeated overstays and commission of offences during parol
Baba Tukaram Gaikwad
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
