Allowed

Suresh @ Ramchandra Laxman Bhopi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Feb 2017WP/190/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court allowed the accused to extend his furlough by 14 days due to his age, medical problem, and consistent past conduct, setting aside imprisonment for the extension period and directing return of security deposit.

What did the court decide?

Extension of furlough by 14 days from 20th May, 2015 to 2nd June, 2015; imprisonment for overstaying set aside; security deposit to be returned.

Suresh @ Ramchandra Laxman Bhopi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

WP.190/2017(13)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2017

¶6

Suresh @ Ramchandra Laxman Bhopi ...Petitioner/Accused Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

...Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Mr. Prosper D'Souza, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia, A.P. P for the State

¶10

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :1^ST FEBRUARY, 2017

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

2. The Petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 29^th

¶14

March, 2015. The said application was granted by an order dated

¶15

21^st April, 2015. Pursuant to the said order the Petitioner was released on furlough on 6^th May, 2015 for a period of 14 days. The Petitioner had to surrender on 19^th May, 2015. On 11^th May, 2015

¶16

the Petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough. The said application was made within time. The application for extension of furlough was rejected, hence, this Petition. By this

¶17

WP.190/2017(13)

¶18

¶19

Petition the Petitioner has sought extension of furlough from 20^th May, 2015 to 2^nd June, 2015.

¶20

The Petitioner had sought extension of furlough on the ground of his own illness. It is seen that the Petitioner is 62 years of age. The application of the Petitioner for extension was rejected on the ground that the illness was not found to be serious. However, it is not disputed that the Petitioner had a medical problem. Looking to this fact and the jail record of the Petitioner, which shows that he was released on furlough on seven occasions and on all occasions he has reported back to prison in time, on humanitarian ground we are inclined to extend furlough period by 14 days ie., from 20^th May, 2015 to 2^nd June, 2015.

¶21

Any prison imprisonment imposed on account of the overstay is set aside. Security deposit, if forfeited, be returned back to the Petitioner.

¶22

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶23

WP.190/2017(13)

¶24

¶25

Office to communicate this order to the Petitioner who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.

¶26

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

Suresh @ Ramchandra Laxman Bhopi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh @ Ramchandra Laxman Bhopi 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

Sanjay Maruti Samage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Aglesh @ Akhilesh Raman Vs the State of Maharashtra

Munnalal Shankarlal @ Niranjan Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Digambar Rangrao Girigosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dinesh Chandrakant Sutar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sujit Vitthal Sutar Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.