In 3.crwp.2487.16, this court discharged the Rule in a criminal writ petition seeking extension of furlough. The rejection was upheld as the medical certificate showed the need for rest fell within the original furlough period, making no case for interference.
Rule discharged; application for extension of furlough dismissed.
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.2487.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2016
Jagdish Pandurang Madhvi Vs.
.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate for Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 10, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [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 on 11.9.2015. The said application was granted and the petitioner was released on furlough during the period from 11.12.2015 to 24.12.2015. On 17.12.2015 the petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application came to be rejected by order
1 of 3
jdk 2 3.crwp.2487.16.j.doc
dated 8.1.2016. The petitioner surrendered back to jail authorities on 8.1.2016. Thus, there was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 14 days. For that, prison punishment was imposed of cutting of remission of one day for each day of overstay i.e. total remission of 14 days was cut. The petitioner is now seeking extension of furlough for a period of 14 days.
3 In support of the contention that the wife of the petitioner was ill, the petitioner relied on medical certificate dated 22.12.2015. The said certificate does not show that the wife of the petitioner needed any surgery or it was necessary to admit her in the hospital. The certificate only shows that the wife of the petitioner was advised complete rest for a period from 16.12.2015 to 27.12.2015. The certificate further states that the wife of the petitioner was medically fit to resume duties from 22.12.2015. The furlough period of the petitioner was to expire on 25.12.2015. Therefore, the period that the wife was advised rest fell within the period that the petitioner was on furlough. In this view of the matter, the application of the petitioner for extension of furlough was rejected.
2 of 3
jdk 3 3.crwp.2487.16.j.doc
4 Looking to the above facts, in our opinion, no case is made out for interference, hence, Rule is discharged.
5 Legal fees to be paid to the appointed advocate is quantified at Rs.2500/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should grant an extension of furlough given that the medical certificate indicated rest was needed during the existing furlough period.
If the Rule should be discharged.
Jagdish Pandurang Madhvi
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
