Dismissed

Sanjay Chabu Tadvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Sept 2016WP/3205/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection and dismissal of his applications for furlough by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. The High Court, considering the petitioner's past record of overstaying parole and furlough periods leading to arrest, held that his apprehension of absconding was reasonable. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not granted furlough due to past conduct of absconding; Rule discharged.

Sanjay Chabu Tadvi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

jdk 1 3.crwp.3205.16.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3205 OF 2016

¶4

Sanjay Chabu Tadvi ] C/7797 ] Presently lodged in Nashik Road ] Central Prison, Nashik ].. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondent

¶7

Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State

¶8

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

¶9

DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:

¶11

1 Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable

¶12

forthwith. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶13

2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

¶14

29.1.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

jdk 2 3.crwp.3205.16.j.doc

¶17

3.4.2016 by D.I.G. (Prisons). Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 25.7.2016, hence, this petition.

¶18

3 The main reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough was that on 4.3.2010 when the petitioner was released on parole, he did not surrender back in time. Ultimately, he was arrested by the police and brought back to prison. Thereafter the petitioner was released on furlough on 10.10.2011 for a period of 14 days. The petitioner did not report back in time and he absconded. Ultimately, the petitioner was traced and arrested by the police and brought back to the prison on 26.2.2015. Thus, there was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 1202 days. In this view of the matter, it was apprehended by the authorities that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will not report back to the prison in time and he will abscond. Looking at the past conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the apprehension is without any basis. In view of these facts, we are not inclined to grant furlough to the petitioner, hence, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

jdk 3 3.crwp.3205.16.j.doc

¶21

4 We quantify legal fees to be paid to the learned appointed advocate at Rs.2500/-.

¶22

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]

¶23

kandarkar

¶24

3 of 3

Sanjay Chabu Tadvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Chabu Tadvi 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

Takku Singh S/O Ajit Singh Kalyani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jaswant Chatur Nai and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arjun Balkrishna Sonavane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor Balkrishna Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip @ Babu Bhausaheb Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra