Writ petition by a prisoner seeking furlough was dismissed because the prisoner had previously overstayed parole without reporting back to prison in time, justifying an apprehension that the furlough application would not be honored. The Rule was discharged.
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 4.crwp.2488.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2488 OF 2016
Irun Ilichand Chavan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal 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 5.11.2015. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 5.2.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 9.5.2016, hence, this petition.
3 The main reason for rejecting the application for furlough was that in the year 2013 i.e. on 28.3.2013 when the petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back to the
1 of 2
jdk 2 4.crwp.2488.16.j.doc
prison in time. There was overstay on his part of 96 days for which the prison punishment of cutting of remission of 495 days was imposed. Looking to the fact that on the last occasion the petitioner did not report back in time, it is apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will not report back in time. Looking to the past conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without any basis. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere, hence, Rule is discharged.
4 In case the petitioner prefers a fresh application for furlough, the same to be considered expeditiously and the conduct of the petitioner in the recent past to be taken into account while deciding the same.
6 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Nasik Road Central Prison.
7 Legal fees to be paid to the appointed advocate is quantified at Rs.2500/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
2 of 2
Irun Ilichand Chavan
The State of Maharashtra
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani
Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
