Dismissed

Bhaskar Jagannath Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jul 2016WP/2118/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged the writ petition seeking extension of furlough for a prisoner. The court held that under government circular, only one extension per calendar year is permissible, and the petitioner had already availed it in the previous year.

What did the court decide?

The High Court refused to extend the furlough period and set aside the prayer to remove the forfeiture of remission.

Bhaskar Jagannath Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

12.WP2118_2016

¶2

vidya

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2118 OF 2016

¶5

Bhaskar Jagannath Mundhe ... Petitioner vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Ms. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the petitioner. Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM: MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶9

JULY 5, 2016.

¶10

ORAL ORDER: (Per Mrs. V.K. Tahilramani, J.)

¶11

Heard both sides.

¶12

Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶13

The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough on 13^th May,

¶14

The said application was granted and the petitioner was released on furlough on 19^th August, 2015 for a period of 14 days. Thus, the petitioner had to surrender on 3^rd September, 2015. After being released on furlough,

¶15

the petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough on 24^th

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

12.WP2118_2016

¶18

August, 2015. The said application came to be rejected. Hence, this Application.

¶19

Learned APP pointed out that on 16^th June, 2014 the petitioner had preferred an application for furlough. The said application was granted and the petitioner was released on furlough on 11^th December, 2014 for a period of 14 days. The petitioner preferred an application for extension of this furlough leave. The said application was granted and furlough leave of the petitioner was extended by a period of 14 days. Thus, the petitioner had to surrender on 8^th January, 2015.

¶20

However, as far as second furlough application is concerned, the petitioner had to surrender on 3^rd September, 2015, however, he surrendered on 17^th September, 2015, i.e., 14 days late, hence it is prayed that furlough period be extended from 3^rd September, 2015 for a period of

¶21

14 days, i.e., upto 17^th September, 2015. The further prayer of the petitioner is that the punishment imposed on him of forfeiture of remission of overstay of furlough leave from 3^rd September, 2015 to 17^th September, 2015 be set aside.

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

12.WP2118_2016

¶24

The Government has issued a circular dated 2^nd December, 2013,

¶25

being Circular No. CR/MIS0198/20 CR-69 P.R.S. 2. In the said Circular, it is stated that in any calendar year, a prisoner can be granted extension of furlough only once. As the furlough period of the petitioner was already extended when he was released on furlough on 11^th December, 2014 and after extension of furlough he had to surrender on 8^th January, 2015. Thereafter again on 4^th September, 2015 further extension of furlough cannot be granted. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Hence, Rule is discharged.

¶26

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

Bhaskar Jagannath Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Jagannath Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rafik Babulal Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Macchindra Haridas Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nishan Singh Jaimal Singh Sohel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saiban Sagir Ahmed Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Manohar Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pappu Mallappa Pol (C-5210) Vs State of Maharashtra