The High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 615 of 2014 rejected the petitioner's plea for interference in the rejection of his furlough application due to prior history of overstaying on furlough and parole.
Rule discharged; no interference in the order of rejection of the application for furlough.
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 12a.wp.615.14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 615 OF 2014
Suraj Sarju Sarate
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Mr. Abhyakumar Apte Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. A.S. Shitole A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 20, 2016
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 4.7.2013. The said application came to be rejected on 16.9.2013. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed on 10.1.2015. Hence, this petition.
3 The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected as in the year 2009 when the petitioner was
1 of 2
jdk 2 12a.wp.615.14.doc
released on furlough on 15.6.2009, he did not report back to the prison in time and ultimately he had to be arrested by the police and was brought back to the prison. There was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 225 days. It is on this ground that it was apprehended that if the petitioner was released on furlough he would not report back in time and would abscond, hence, application for furlough came to be rejected. Looking to the history of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the apprehension is unfounded.
4 Even otherwise, it is seen that in the year 2014 the petitioner has been released on parole from 15.7.2014 to 14.9.2014. Thereafter the petitioner was released on parole on 21.1.2016 for 30 days, however, the petitioner did not report back in time and there was overstay of 58 days. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of rejection of the application for furlough. Hence, rule is discharged.
[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
2 of 2
Suraj Sarju Sarate
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Anuja Prabhuide Sai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
