Convict applicant sought furlough leave. Court declared the application infructuous as furlough for 2020 and 2021 had already been granted by the authority, rendering the present petition unnecessary.
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.
R/SCR.A/1068/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1068 of 2020
========================================================== MUKESHBHAI NANJIBHAI NINAMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
THROUGH JAIL(50) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RONAK RAVAL APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 UNSERVED WANT OF TIM(31) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN Date : 08/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
The present application has been preferred by the applicant – convict through jail seeking furlough leave against the rejection of the application by the authority on 24.01.2021 on the ground of adverse police opinion and seriousness of the offence.
Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.
I have read the application, perused the documents and jail remarks on record. From the jail remarks, it is clear that the 2nd furlough has been recently released from 29.09.2021 to 12.10.2021. Thus, both the furlough for the year 2020 and 2021 are granted by the authority, present application has become infructuous and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Jail Authority by Fax or Email forthwith .
(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J)
R.H. PARMAR
Page 1 of 1
Mukeshbhai Nanjibhai Ninama
State of Gujarat
Rajendra M. Sareen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
