Dismissed

Anil Kumar Ramshakal Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jan 2017WP/4538/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner, a convict lodged in a central prison, filed an application for furlough. He challenged the rejection of his application by an appellate court based on his past conduct of overstaying during two previous furlough periods, leading to his arrest and return by police.

What did the court decide?

Action was taken on the petitioner's furlough application (rejection maintained) and the statutory rule was discharged.

Anil Kumar Ramshakal Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp.4538.16.13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4538 OF 2016 (THROUGH JAIL)

¶3

Anilkumar Ramshakal Sharma Convict/6466 (Presently lodged at Nahsik Road Central Prison, Nashik) ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Prosper D'Souza, appointed Advocate for the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. H. J. Dedia, A.P.P for the Respondent-State

¶9

CORAM : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. TUESDAY, 17th JANUARY, 2017

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, J.) :

¶11

Heard both sides.

¶12

The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

¶13

23^rd April, 2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 19^th August, 2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 15^th November, 2016. Hence, this petition.

1/3

SQ Pathan

wp.4538.16.13.doc

The main ground on which the application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected is that on 17^th May, 2011, the petitioner was released on furlough for a period of 14 days. However, he did not report back in time. Ultimately, the petitioner had to be traced and arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. There was delay of 108 days. Thereafter, despite the fact that the petitioner had earlier overstayed and he was brought back to the prison by the police authorities, the petitioner was released on furlough on 7^th February, 2013 for a period of 14 days. The petitioner did not report back to the prison in time and after more than one year, to be more precise, 383 days, the petitioner was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. In view of these facts, the authorities apprehend that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will abscond and will not report back to the prison in time.

¶18

Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without any basis.

2/3

SQ Pathan

wp.4538.16.13.doc

In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to

¶23

interfere. Rule is discharged.

¶24

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶25

3/3

¶26

SQ Pathan

Anil Kumar Ramshakal Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Ramshakal Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobha Jahangir Shinde @ Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad S. Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand Yellappa Walawalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jitendra Shantilal Modha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhihshek Virendra Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Vilas Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.