Allowed

Nandkumar Savlaram Bhoir v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Sept 2016WP/3168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of an application for extension of furlough granted to a convict suffering from viral fever and dengue-like symptoms. The Court, on humanitarian grounds, extended the furlough by 14 days, set aside potential prison punishment for the overstay, and ordered the return of any forfeited security deposit.

What did the court decide?

Furlough extended by 14 days; prison punishment for overstay set aside; forfeited security deposit ordered to be returned.

Nandkumar Savlaram Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

3.WP3168_2016.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3168 OF 2016

¶5

Nandkumar Savlaram Bhoir ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Ms. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the petitioner. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent/State.

¶8

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

¶9

DATE : SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 4^th April, 2015. The said application came to be granted by order dated 28^th October, 2015. Pursuant to the order granting the application for furlough, the petitioner was released on furlough on 29^th October, 2015 to 11^th November, 2015, i.e., a period of 14 days. On 4^th November, 2015, the petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough on the ground of his illness. The extension was sought for a period of 14 days from 12^th November, 2015 to 25^th November, 2015. The said application was rejected. Hence, this Petition.

¶12

It is an admitted fact that after the period of 14 days was over on 26^th

¶13

November, 2015, the petitioner reported back to the prison on his own.

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

3.WP3168_2016.doc

¶16

The police report shows that the reason given by the petitioner that he was ill and he had viral fever is true. Moreover, in the extended period when the petitioner was out on furlough, he has not come to the adverse notice of the police in any manner. However, just because it was felt that the illness was not serious, the application of the petitioner for extension of furlough was rejected.

¶17

Earlier certificate of the petitioner dated 4^th November, 2015 no doubt shows that he was suffering from viral fever and he needed 10 to 12 days bed rest for his recovery, however, the subsequent certificate dated 10^th November, 2015, the genuineness of which is not doubted, shows that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever and he was developing sign and symptoms like dengue fever, for which investigation was required. Looking to the ill-health of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that on humanitarian ground and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, extension of furlough ought to be granted for a period of 14 days. Accordingly, the period of furlough is extended by a period of 14 days. Any prison punishment imposed on account of this overstay is set aside. If Security deposit is forfeited, it be returned back to the prisoner.

¶18

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

3.WP3168_2016.doc

¶21

Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba. The fees to be paid to the appointed counsel are quantified at Rs.2,500/-.

¶22

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

¶23

3 / 3

Nandkumar Savlaram Bhoir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkumar Savlaram Bhoir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Balkrishna Sonavane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Chabu Tadvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parvez Ahmed @ Guddu Vahid Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor Baburao Chipat Vs the State of Maharashtra