Dismissed

Dinesh @ Shaifan Sunkappa Kunchikorve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2017WP/2383/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge criminal writ petition challenged the rejection of a furlough application on the ground that the applicant's appeal was pending before the High Court. The bench held that the rejection was valid under amended Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition challenging the rejection of the furlough application was dismissed.

Dinesh @ Shaifan Sunkappa Kunchikorve Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

jdk 1 12.crwp.2383_apw.358.17.j.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2383 OF 2017 WITH CRI. APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2017 IN

¶3

CRI. W.P.NO. 2383 OF 2017

¶4

Dinesh @ Saifan Sunkappa ] Kunchikorve ] Age about 29 years, Occ: ] At present in ] Kolhapur Central Prison, ] Kolhapur as Convict -5732 ].. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ] and its functionaries D.I.G. / ] I.G. and home Deptt. ].. Respondent

¶7

Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mrs. G.P.Mulekar A.P.P. for the State

¶8

Mr. Vinod Tayade Advocate for the Intervenor / applicant in Cri. Application No. 358 of 2017

¶9

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 01, 2017

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:

¶11

1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶12

A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the Intervenor.

¶13

2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 28.10.2016. The said application was rejected on 5.1.2017.

¶14

jdk 2 12.crwp.2383_apw.358.17.j.doc

¶15

Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 13.4.2017, hence, this petition.

¶16

3 One of the grounds for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough was that his appeal is pending before the High Court. By Notification dated 26.8.2016, Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 has been amended and it has been added therein that the cases where the appeal of the prisoner is pending before the higher Court, no furlough shall be granted to such prisoner. As the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before this Court, we cannot find any error in the order of the authorities rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough. In view of these facts, we are not inclined to interfere, hence, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶17

4 In view of the disposal of the writ petition, criminal application no. 358 of 2017 does not survive and is disposed of as such.

¶18

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI,J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶19

kandarkar

¶20

2 of 2

Dinesh @ Shaifan Sunkappa Kunchikorve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh @ Shaifan Sunkappa Kunchikorve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Ravindra Dattatraya Patil Vs Smt. Sachita Ravindra Patil

Arunkumar @ Kallu Rajendra Prasad Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Datta Sidram Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Nikita Sagar Tale Vs Mr. Sagar Ramesh Tale

Ukappa Devdas Kunchikorve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Popat Shripati Gayakwad Vs the State of Maharashtra