Petitioner, convicted of kidnapping, challenged rejection of furlough application based on Amendment Rule 4(13). The notification was previously upheld as intra vires. Permission declined.
Rule made returnable forthwith is 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.
Sherla V.
wp.5077.2014_3.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5077 OF 2014
Amol Arun Ukrande ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Ms.Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP, for Respondent – State
CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE: JUNE 9, 2016
P.C.:
1 / 2
wp.5077.2014_3.doc
rules 11 to 19 were added. Sub-rule (13) inter alia states that the prisoners convicted for offence of kidnapping shall not be entitled to furlough. The vires of the notification dated 23.2.2012 was raised in Criminal Writ Petition No.4034 of 2014. The said challenge was turned down and it was held that the notification was intra vires . The application of the present petitioner for furlough was rejected in view of Rule 4 (13). In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere.
5. Rule is discharged.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
(V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
2 / 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Home Department notification denying furlough to prisoners convicted of kidnapping.
Amol Arun Ukrande
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
