Dismissed

Avinash @ Pintya Ashok Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Jul 2016WP/2242/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of a plea for furlough rejection. While the Court noted that the prior rejection based on overstay was not unfounded, it directed that a fresh application be decided expeditiously by taking into account all relevant facts and recent conduct, before discharging the rule and refusing interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

Avinash @ Pintya Ashok Jadhav Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

wp.2242.2016_2.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2242 OF 2016

¶5

Avinash @ Pintya Ashok Jadhav ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Hitesh P. Shah for the Petitioner Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP, for Respondent – State

¶9

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

¶10

DATE: JULY 21, 2016

¶11

ORAL ORDER (PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶14

The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 15.12.2015. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 13.4.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 29.6.2016, hence, this Petition.

¶15

The application on the part of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected on the ground that in the year 2013, when the petitioner was released on furlough, he did not report back to the prison in time. The

¶16

1 / 2

¶17

wp.2242.2016_2.doc

¶18

police then traced and arrested the petitioner and brought him back to the prison. Based on this fact, it was apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he would abscond and not report back to the prison. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, especially the fact that he had to be arrested by the police and brought back to the prison, we cannot say that the apprehension is unfounded. However, if the petitioner prefers a fresh application for furlough, the same be decided expeditiously by the concerned authorities. The application shall not be rejected only on account of earlier overstay but while deciding the application for furlough all relevant facts to be taken into consideration especially the conduct of the petitioner in prison since 6.11.2013.

¶19

In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage, hence, Rule is discharged.

¶20

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

¶21

2 / 2

Avinash @ Pintya Ashok Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Avinash @ Pintya Ashok Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alpana Mohan Mhaske Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Shekhar @ Bhagwan Chandrakant Kajale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Raghunath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwat Putalya Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chotelal Rambrij Paswan Vs the State of Maharashtra