A prisoner petitioner sought an order extending the period of his furlough. The High Court granted the extension by 14 days, setting aside any punishment for overstay and directing the return of the security deposit.
Extension of furlough by 14 days; overstay punishment set aside; security deposit to be returned.
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.
WP.194/2017(15)
1
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 194 OF 2017
Dinesh Chandrakant Sutar
...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
Ms. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia, A. P. P for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :1ST FEBRUARY, 2017
P.C. :
Heard both sides.
May, 2015. The said application was granted by an order dated 16th
October, 2015. Pursuant thereto the Petitioner was released on furlough on 26th November, 2015 for a period of 14 days.
Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough for further period of 14 days. The said application was
rejected. Hence this Petition.
WP.194/2017(15)
2
made within time. The order of rejection shows that the Petitioner had reported to the concerned Police Station without fail as per the conditions imposed on him while granting furlough. During the period when the Petitioner was on furlough, he did not come to the adverse notice of the police and he has not taken part in any illegal activities. The police report shows that the reason given by the Petitioner for seeking extension of furlough that his father is ill was found to be true and the police had no objection to the furlough period being extended.
Petitioner had not annexed any papers relating to the fact that the operation of his father was scheduled and that the illness was not found to be serious enough to extend the period of furlough. As far as this aspect is concerned the order of rejection shows that the reason given by the Petitioner for seeking extension of furlough was found to be true. It may be stated that the conduct of the Petitioner in prison is found to be good. Looking to all these facts
WP.194/2017(15)
3
on humanitarian ground we are inclined to extend period of
furlough by a further period of 14 days.
set aside. Security deposit, if forfeited, be returned back to the Petitioner.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's application for extension of furlough should be granted on humanitarian grounds despite rejection.
Dinesh Chandrakant Sutar
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
M.S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
