The court dismissed an application for furlough rejected earlier as vexatious, noting the petitioner failed to avail liberty-to-appeal granted in prior proceedings.
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.
40-WP-61-16
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.61 OF 2016
Suraj s/o Shyam Arkhel
-vs-
State of Maharashtra and anr.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Shri N. H. Samudre, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. S. S. Jachak, APP for the State.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : MARCH 16, 2016
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/06/2015 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for his release on furlough.
In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 it has been stated that the petitioner had challenged the same impugned order in Criminal Writ Petition No.495 of 2015 which was decided on 05/08/2015. The said writ petition was not entertained and liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal against the said order. However, without filing an appeal, the petitioner has again challenged the same order. It is therefore submitted that the present writ petition does not deserve to be entertained.
Having perused the order dated 05/08/2015 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.495 of 2015 as well as the records of Criminal Writ Petition No.495 of 2015, it is clear that the order dated 20/06/2015 that has been impugned in the present writ petition was also impugned in the earlier writ
40-WP-61-16
2/2
petition. Considering the fact that this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy and without availing the same, the petitioner has again challenged the order dated 20/06/2015, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Asmita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order already rejected in a previous petition where liberty to appeal was granted but not availed.
Suraj s/o Shyam Arkhel
State of Maharashtra
B. R. Gavai
A. S. Chandurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
