Petitioner sought parole due to medical issues. The application was rejected because he absconded during a prior furlough and committed an offence under the Arms Act. The High Court found no case for interference and discharged the rule.
Rule discharged; petition for parole rejected.
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.
9_wp_848_2016_disp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.848 OF 2016
Wilson Benjamin Castellino ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. A.G. Toraskar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner. Mr. H.J. Dedia, APP for the Respondent -State.
CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ
DATED: 8th March, 2016
ORAL ORDER [ PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
Heard both the sides. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.
Megha
1/2
9_wp_848_2016_disp
back to the prison in time. There was over stay on his part of 674 days. Ultimately the Petitioner was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. Moreover during the period that the Petitioner overstayed his furlough period, he committed one offence punishable under the provisions of Arms Act. Hence, it was apprehended that if the Petitioner is released on parole, he may again abscond and commit offence.
(Smt. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (Smt.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
Megha
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the rejection of the petitioner's medical parole application due to prior absconding and fresh offence during furlough.
Wilson Benjamin Castellino
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Anuja PrabhuDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court